153 
C 






Qass LJ_5^ 

Book 0-^7 



CIRCULAR LETTER, >«S:i^ 
No. I. 

To the Republican Committees 
of Correspondence. 

Fellow-Citizens — So far as we have had any agency, we 
have conducted the discussion preparatory to the approaching 
election, in the liberal manner reconnmended by the Carlisle con- 
vention ; for, it is in vain that the constitution guarantees the 
rights of opinion and discussion, if we substitute terms of reproach 
for argument, or strive to suppress enquiry by denunciation. 

The candid, indeed, must confess, that if we had resorted to a 
severe retaliation for unprovoked violence, we should have been 
justified in doing so ; but, we listened to denunciations, without 
the smallest uneasiness for ourselves ; because, those, who were 
so indecent as to proscribe us for a difference in opinion, if they 
reflect at all, have felt the sting of self reproach ; or, if they are 
incapable of reflection, we should pity, rather than be oCended. 

You will deceive yourselves, fellow-citizens, if you rest ycfur 
hopes of success at the approaching election, upon any other ba- 
sis than the diffusion of correct information amongst the peopU ; 
we should, indeed, disdain. to do otherwise. Those, whose ob- 
ject is the mere success of a candidate, must of necessity rely up- 
on prejudices and misrepresentations ; but we, who aim at the 
correction of abuses, must seek a triumph that will be permanent 
and had better not succeed at all, than if we cannot do so by ho- 
norable means. 

It is our opinion, that abuses will be corrected, and that our 
candidate will be elected, if the voice of truth shall reach the ears 
of our countrymen ; but this can only be accomplished by excit' 
ing amongst them a spirit of enquiry, and urging them to a pa- 
tient and rigid investigation. In order that the people may not 
be deceived, it is necessary that you should advise them, 7iot to 
accept any thing that they hear or read upon trusty hit to com- 
pare and decide for themselves. At all times, this is the only 
safe and honorable course for a people, who desire to be free, or 
claim to be intelligent : but it is, in our opinion, particularly ne- 



r IS3 

[2 ] 



o1 



cessary that this rule should be observed at the present moment, 
for, as, we shall presently shew you, the most u7ifounded misrepre- 
sentations are published as facts ^ and respectable men lend their 
names to convey those misrepresentations unsuspected or unexa- 
mined by the people. 

Public indignation has long since doomed to political death the 
address promulgated at Harrisburg : and, as some of its signf rs 
were amongst the most anxious to consign it to oblivion, we have 
no desire to disturb its ashes. It is worthy of the notice of the 
people, however, that some of the persons who lamented the vio- 
lence of that address, which they had signed, have given birth to 
another, if not more violent, at least as impudent. We call your 
attention, to an address published on the 31st of May, under the 
signature of Mr. Mathew Carey, the author of the Olive Branchy 
and others, and as we have understood, avowed to be from his 
pen. You have now before you the labors of undenied violence 
and of arrogated moderation, and we will assist you to make a 
just comparison between the two, as well as a fair conclusion 
from them both. 

Our opponents have misrepresented the motives^ the conduct^ 
and the character^ of the Carlisle convention : 

1. The motives of the delegates are said to be impure, that 
they sought to gratify personal interests : this is an assertion for- 
mally contradicted, by a solemn protestation, made by men whose 
private character and public conduct defy scrutiny. Here we 
might rest, and suffer the public to decide ; but we beg you to re- 
collect, that the very persons, who advocated and recommended 
the formation of a convention at Carlisle, besought their fellow 
citizens, ;o send no persons as delegates, who were likely to be 
now influenced or hereafter rewarded — so anxious were the 
friends of that convention to avoid even the suspicion of impu- 
rity. 

2, As to the conduct of the Carlisle convention : is it not a lit- 
tle singular that persons who were not present, should pretend to 
know more than those who were— it is asserted, that the Carlisle 
convention, " sat with closed doors, with strong appearances of 
concealment and mystery :" All that is necessary, is, to assure 
our fellow citizens, that the assertion is utterly untrue : There 
were two sessions of the Carlisle convention, and prior to each, 
the door was thrown open, and Mr. Mathew Carey himself, 
with his associates, might, if they had thought proper, have en- 
tered, without the least difficulty or disinclination on the part of 
the delegates. 

The contest which is now going on in Pennsylvania, is not on 
cur part a contest about men, but a struggle to preserve the elec- 
tive principle pure and uninjured ; on the part of our opponents, 
a struggle to sustain a caucus nomination in all its odiousness. 
When we commenced this struggle last year, our opponents im- 



[ 3 ] 

pugned our motives, misrepresented our conduct, and tried to 
persuade the people that they alone were right : But, now the 
same opponents confess that our complaints were well-touncled, 
that the mode in which presidents and governors had been nomi- 
nated was " radically unsound," and " a different mode of nomi- 
nation was requisite." 

Now, again, our opponents say we are wrong, but we hope 
again to convince them of their mistake, and that as we dislodged 
them from a defence of avowed caucusing, we shall be able to 
make them relinquish a practice which still retains its most odious 
features. 

If, as the address confesses, a new mode of nomination was re- 
quisite — it surely was not incumbent upon any freeman in No- 
vember last to support what was wrong, and it was the right of 
every freeman to propose a substitute : it was not only the right 
of every man to oppose a bad measure, and to support a better, 
but it was every man's solemn duty, if Mr. Carey's Olive Branch 
is to be credited ; for it declares, that whatever vitiates elections, 
ought to alarm the friends of freedom, and arouse them to oppo- 
sition, and in his address he confesses that the old mode of nomi- 
nating was " radically unsound." 

What would be the best mode? was the emphatic question 
presented to every freeman's mind, and it was of no consequence 
who proposed the remedy, if it removed the evil But before any 
man or body of men could decide which would be the best reme- 
dy, it was all-important to understand the real nature of the evil. 

Upon this point we will not attempt to decide, but Mr. Carey 
himself shall determine. 

In the 78th chapter of the Olive Branch, Mr. Carey says, that 
there did exist radical and powerful objections to the old mode of 
nominating a president, because presidents will be tempted to cor- 
rupt members of congress — because members of congress will be 
likely to be corrupted — because leaders in congress will be able to 
command a majority of votes — because there will be men in con- 
gress abject enough to follow those leaders. In short, because the 
seat of government will become the scene of intrigue^ paving the 
way for the inroads of corruption^ znd presenting a focus for in- 
trigue and management. 

Such then is the evil in the national councils, or at the seat of 
the national government : if it be true, that we ought vigilantly to 
watch our president and members of congress, there exist greater 
necessity for watching our governor and assembly-men ; firsts be- 
cause there is no check whatever in our state constitution, ex- 
cluding legislators and office-holders: and, because^ comparing 
their stations, the means to corrupt at the disposal of a governor 
of Pennsylvania are greater than those of the president of the 
United States. 



[ 4 3 

The delegates who met at Carlisle, believing what the Olive 
Branch proclaimed, that it was dangerous to trust men '-^ collected 
in one spot for months together^ presenting a focus for intrigue, 
management^ and corruption*^ — 

Proposed, 1 , That the people should elect delegates to meet in 
convention, and nominate a candidate. 

2. That the independent delegates, when chosen by the peo* 
pie, should meet at an unsuspected place, and not at Har- 
risburgh, the seat of government. 

3. That the people should not choose as a delegate any man 
depending upon the governor for the tenure of his office, or 
any person likely to accept an office, in reward for his friend- 
ship to a candidate. 

Such were th^ remedies^ proposed by the Carlisle convention 
of September last, for the evil described by Mr- Carey ; nor can 
any good man hesitate upon the question, that if the proposition 
had been accepted, there rvould have been no avenue for intrigue, 
management^ or corruption^ the disideratum in a cause so despe- 
rate. 

But this plan, which closed all the avenues through which in- 
trigue could enter, was the one naturally, dreaded by men, to 
whose strongest passions the office of governor held out lures.— 
Those who had made " the seat of government a scene of in- 
trigue, paving the way for the inroads of corruption :" those who 
had made that spot " a focus for intrigue and management"— 
those, who, " actuated by avarice or ambition, could very readi- 
ly offer sufficient temptations by the numerous offices of profit 
and honor in the gift" of the governor, saw, that if the plan pro- 
posed at Carlisle was pursued, their " schemes" would all be 
blasted. 

In such a dilemma, what was to be done ? public opinion de-f 
clared against avorved caucusing, and that was less hazardous 
than a convention of independent xn^u^ fairly chosen, and assem-^ 
bled in an unsuspected place : those who panted for office had not 
the courage to adhere to the old mode, or the virtue to accede to 
the new one, and therefore they pursued a middle course. 

Mr. Carey, after admitting that the old mode was unsound, 
that it made the seat of government a focus for corruption, and 
that a new mode was necessary, gravely tells us, in his address, 
that there was no assembly soon to meet, to whom the people 
could so naturally look for a remedy as the electors of president 
and vice-president ! the very same electors, who had been them- 
selves elected (arguing from experience) by a caucus of 47 as- 
semblymen, " collected in one spot for months together, present- 
ing a focus for intrigue, management, and corruption !" 

Mr. Carey asserts that the electors " recommended a moment- 
ous change in the operation'"' of nominating a candidate for gov- 
ernor : They recommended that the democratic citizens should 



C s 3 

meet in their usual places of election, there to elect delegates to 
meet at Harrisburgh, on the fourth of March, to nominate a go- 
vernor. 

All that is necessary to decide whether this was a suitable re- 
medy for the evil, is to recur to Mr. Carey's description of it-r- 
and ask, did this momentous change prevent the seat of govern- 
ment from being a " scene of intrigue, paving the way for the in- 
roads of corruption ?" Did this momentous change take the right 
of nominating from " men collected in one spot for months to- 
gether, presenting a focus for intrigue, managemeni, and corrup- 
tion ?" Did this momentous change render it impossible tor po- 
litical leaders in the legislature to command a majority of votes ? 

Not one of the odious characteristics of the old mode was re- 
medied — the matter was simply thrown upon the people, without 
rule or explanation ; the electors, or their prompters, well know- 
ing what would be the result. For it is notorious that the elec- 
tors, who had no more right or authority, than any other 26 per- 
sons, and who were, from the mode of their election, and their 
place of meeting, more open than any others to suspicion, recom- 
mended a measure loose and inadequate, without suggesting any 
appeal whatever from their decision : so that they arrogantly pro- 
posed, and their supporters as arrogantly upheld, their dictimi as 
law for the whole republican population. The question was not, 
" is the plan good or bad ?" but, " will you support this plan or 
not ? if you do not you must not attend our meetings" — and thus 
throughout the state of Pennsylvania, all who dared to doubt, 
were subjected to "the penalty of a political anathema." No 
wonder, therefore, that the recommendation of the electors, that 
the democratic citizens should meet, had so little effect, and that 
the meetings were composed, almost exclusively, of persons de- 
riving advantage, in one shape or another from the " ruling pow- 
ers-" 

But, the address of Mr. Carey boasts that there were 113 per- 
sons at Harrisburgh and but 39 at Carlisle — as if a measure 
ought to be tested by such a circumstance. If, indeed, the elec- 
tors had proposed that the democratic citizens should meet in 
their respective counties, to decide what should be the remedijfor 
the evil, and if the citizens, in the proportion of 113 to 39, had 
decided for 2l partial^ instead of a radical cure, there might hav>e 
been cause for boasting : — or if there had been a free and fair 
election of the delegates on both sides, instead of a selection on 
one by an exclusive and interested sect, and a candid choice by 
independent men on the other, some stress might have been laid 
upon mere numbers : But no such opportunity was given — none 
were invited, but those who would bow in submission to the dic- 
tum of the electors. There were 113 at Harrisburgh, and but 39 
at Carlisle, for the same reason that there is always? a majority 
for every measure, no matter how iniquitous, proposed in Abe 



[ 6 3 

British parliament by the ministry : and unless we are willing id 
admit that the measures of that parliament are sound, merely be- 
cause they are adopted by a packed majority, we must laugh at 
the absurdity of deciding a principle b> the circumstance of there 
having been 11 j at one place, and but 39 at another. 

If this principle is to be held as feasible, and it is contended 
that the greater numbers procured by legislative artifice, is to be 
a criterion of authority ; by carrying the rule a litde further, the 
caucus itself would be obliged to bend, to a body of one hundred 
and forty ; for, if an opulent man desirous of being governor, 
should pay 140 men for assembling in some other place, the cau- 
cus of 113, must, upon their own principles, give way. 

Our opponents, from the beginning, determined to substitute 
shew for substance, and nwnbers for principle, while we, trusting 
altogether to substance and principle, despised the paltry cover- 
ings which suit " the seat of intrigue, management, and corrup- 
tion." Our opponents for t^ sake of appearance, took care to 
collect representatives, as they termed them, from senatorial dis- 
tricts, as well as from counties. Of the 113, they had 12 senato- 
rial agents, and 44 members of assembly, the very persons described 
in the Olive Branch, so open to temptation, and so likely to be 
corrupted. There were 50 delegates elected to attend at Carlisle, 
of whom 11, from various causes, could not attend : and, as we 
had suggested that such counties as could not send delegates, 
should send instructions, accordingly instructions were sent by 
the counties of Bedford, Montgomery and Bucks. So that on 
the score of numbers, but 7 respresentatives of counties, travel- 
led to Harrisburgh more than were elected to proceed to Carlisle, 
and we may safely say, that there were at least twice that num- 
ber at Harrisburgh, either dependant for offices, or actually ap- 
plying for them; while at Carlisle there was not a single officer de- 
pendent on the executive, nor to judge so far as motive can be 
judged by words, one expectant. At Harrisburgh the candidate 
was decided on before the meeting was held, whilst at Carlisle, 
it was utterly impossible to know, even when the meeting was 
opened, who would be the candidate. 

It is remarkable that the very same kind of exception on ac- 
count of numbers^ was made by the agents of England to the old 
continental congress y they »ay, that it consisted of only one or 
two delegates from each colony ; that some of the colonies sent 
none ; and that this body, which dared to contend with the house 
of lords and the 558 members of an omnipotent parliafment, never 
amounted to 30 persons ! 

But it is by numbers that the people of Pennsylvania are to deter- 
mine which mode of nomination is best, whether the one proposed 
at Carlisle or Harrisburgh ? We contend for the former, because it 
shuts the doors at which corruption can enter. The argument of 
Mr. Carey as to the anxiety of a president to acqviire power, ap- 



C 7 ] 

plies with equal force to the case of a governor. If members of 
congress, may be so easily bribed, there is nothing in the charac- 
ter of assemblymen, less corruptible — If the president has offices 
to purchase votes, the governor of Pennsylvania is more power- 
ful, for he has no senate to control him — If political leaders can 
acquire influence in congress as to command votes, the same in- 
fluence may be exercised in Pennsylvania, and with the same ef- 
fect. 

What, then, becomes of Mr. Carey's moynentous change ? If 
the evil was l-adical, where is the remedy ? If "■ every measure 
*■'■ calculated to vitiate elections, and subject them to the influence 
** of intrigue and management, ought to excite alarm," why was 
the nomination made at " the seat of intrigue and corruption ?" 
why made by men, "■ collected in one spot for months together, 
*' presenting a focus for intrigue, management, and cr ;' ruption ?" 
for it surely will not be pretended, that the paltry meetings, ia 
county towns or districts of 6, 10, or 20 persons, could have had 
the magical influence of changing a&sembly-men for one day into 
incorruptible beings — this would be as gross an absurdity as the 
shallow pretext of members of congress, that when they sit in 
caucus they are individuals, and not legislators. 

And, now, fellow citizens, if you, or the people suppose, that, 
with all our pains to be brief and methodical, this letter is too long, 
or if it should surprise you that to answer one page, we must Write 
twenty, we have no other apology to offer but the explanation of 
Swift — " Factious writers," says he, " affirm a thousand untruths ; 
and we, who answer, roust be at the expense of an argument for 
each" — a circumstance which would not distress us, if, as Swift 
adds, it did not unfortunately happen, that "after all our argu- 
ments the very same assertions will be made again in the next 
pamphlet." 

JOHN GOODMAN, 
JOSEPH REED, 
J. W. THOMPSON, 
ISAAC BOYER. 



Philadelphia, June 14, 1817. 



W. J. DUANE. 



CIRCULAR LETTER 

No. II. 



TO THE MEPUBLICA^Y COMMITTEES OF 
COnRESPOJyrnE,\'CE, 

Fellow Citizens. — -In the first letter that we addressed 
lo you, we confined ourselves, to a defence of the 7notiVeSy 
conduct^ and character^ of the Carlisle convention j and en- 
deavored, as we trust successfully, to prove, that the meeting 
at Carlisle had not one of the characteristics of a caucus, 
whilst that at Harrisburgh was distinguished by the most 
odious features of that pernicious substitute for free elec- 
tions= 

It is our intention, in the present letter, to explain and de- 
fend the chnractery services^ and principles, of Mr. Joseph 
Heister, the candidate recommended at Carlisle, for the sta- 
tion of governor. In executing this duty, if we shall at all 
notice anonymous accusation or surmise, we hope that it 
may be understood as an evidence of our respect for public 
opinion, and of our willingness to meet even masked attacks. 

1. Of his character. With regard to the private repu- 
tation of Mr. Heister, it is scarcely necessary to say more, 
than, that it has remained unsullied and almost unassailed— 
a very uncommon circumstance, considering the length of 
his political i.fe, and the licentiousntss of the press. It in 
said, indeed, that he is a man of wealth — -as if it were a dis- 
grace to have been alwa}'s upright and industrious, and of 
course successful, as a farmer and merchant : If he had ac- 
quired his estate, from the public treasury, by a lease for life, 
of office, one might well regard the circumstance as an 
argument for rotation ; but we consider it an honor to our 
candidate, that bv his own means, he has become superior 
to the suspicion of mercenary temptation, or the necessity 
of mean dependence, which it would be well for the public 
ii his opposers could say ot themselves. 

2. As to the services of Mr. Heister, it is fortunate, that 
we can speak of them in the hearing of so many, who per- 
sonally know their date and character. When the founders 
of the republic had resolved to sever the bands, which had 
!)ound thft colonies to the crown of Great Britain, Pennsyl- 



Viuii;! tcstiui-d its sense of the ability and patriotism of Mr. 
Hcist(r, by appointing him a member of the committee of 
tonftrence, created for the purpose of giving effect to that 
important determination : and, as soon as the committee of 
conference had decided upon raising 10,000 effective men, 
i\Ir, Heister was one of the first appointed to the command 
of one of the regiments, with the unanimous approbation of 
the committee of vigilance of his native county* Such 
distihguihhed marks of confidence on the part of his coun- 
^ trymen, instead of creating self confidence and pride, which 
f' would have been the characteristics of a weak mind, afford- 
ed to Mr. Heister the opportunity to give a striking proof, 
that his country had not mistaken his character ; for, finding 
that some of his older fellow citizens had supposed them- 
,jV\ seiVes flighted by the elevation of a younger man, and 
feeling how important it was that there should not be the 
':e?.3t cause of jealously or division, at a crisis so momentous, 
he magnanimously relinquished the rank o£ colonel, oi lieu- 
tenant colonel, and of major, which had been successivelif 
conferred iip07i hvn,\x\ favor of col. Haller, lieut. col. Lotz^ 
'Ciud m^jor Edzvard Burd, (now living in Philadelphia) — 
contenting himself with the rank of captain. Having thus 
preferred the interests of his country to his own, and secur- 
ed to the state the services of gentlemen of experience, 
he immediately raised a company, enabled his men to leave 
their families by advances from his own funds, and marched 
to join his ccrips on the the 20th of July, 1776. The regi- 
ment to which he was attached, was organized at Tren- 
ten, marched thence for New Yerk, and joined the 
grand army under general Washington ; forming part 
of the division under lord Sterling, on .Long Island. 
His regiment was one of those most warmly engaged in the 
fatal battle on the 27th of August, 1776, in which so many 
brave men bled for their country, and so many more fell into 
the hands of the enemy; amongst the latter was capt. Jo~ 
«epli Heister: he was one of the few whose constitutions 
resisted the horrors of the Jersey and Mentor prison ships j 
and, when at length exchanged in December, 1776, he 
returned to his family, with the i-esolution to rejoin the stan- 
dard at the first call of his country. 

It is flue to the reputation of this commonwealth, v/hich 
iiad reposed so much confidence and conferred so much ho- 
nor upon Mr. Heister: audit is due to the glory of the re- 
volution itself ; as well as to the fame of the veteran, who 
had in return done so much honor to the state in trusts repos- 
ed in him, in"' thnes that tried men's souls,'''' on this occasion 
lo repel tho atrocious calumny, invented, circulated, and 



after formal contradiction, still repeated^ that Mi\ Hiister 
had the command of a regiment at the battle of Brandijxvhiei 
in September^ 1777^ and that he disgracefully left the f eld of 
battle. This falshood, published without a reference or a 
name, is refuted by the declaration v/hich M'e thus 
make upon such authority as sets aside doubt, that, 
Mr. Heister, after his return from a British prison 
ship^ remained with his family, xvithout rank or com?nand\ 
until several weeks after the battle of Brandywins tock 
place : that he was then called upon to take command of c: 
regiment J that he accordingly assumed that command, 
inarched to join general Washington, first to the Swamp. 
and then to the Whitemarsh, where he remained until he 
had completed his tour of duty. Remarks upon the de- 
sign and nature of a charge so infamous and unfounded, are 
unnecessary : but if the liberty of America be as precious 
to the people as it should be, this attack upon one of its vete- 
rans, will arouse their indignation; it is an accusation, in- 
volving so deep an injury, and so gross an insult, to the cha- 
racter of the whole Pennsylvania line, and to the cause of in- 
dependence, that we trust the survivors of that gallant band 
will not fail to remember, that its real authors are not the con- 
temptible beings who gave it currency^ but persons seeking 
from the state, thus insulted, ns highest honors. No ! fellow 
citizens, at Trenton, in 1778, and in all other stations, to 
which Mr. Heister's duty called him, he maintained 
the reputation which he had acquired on Long Island, in 
1776. 

Before we enumerate the civil duties, performed by Mr. 
Heister, it maybe useful to enquire, what his opposers say 
with regard to his services in the revolution. The address 
of Mr. M. Carey and others, alluded to in our last, says, that 
the signers of it, are unable to perceive the claims of Mr. 
Heister, that he has been long in public life, but that hi;? 
career has little to distinguish it. This, if it may be called 
an objection, is also to be found in many of the anonymous 
attacks upon Mr. Heister : '* The annals of the revolutionary 
war," says one his assailants, "are silent" on the subject of 
his military services— strange argument, indeed, to address 
to the freemen of Pennsylvania, so many of whom were 
colonels, subalterns or privates, in the gallant army of 1776 ! 
yes, they all staked their lives, fortunes and honor ; many 
of them were wounded, and many more made prisoners ; 
but, say the opposers of Mr, Heister, the annals of the 
war are silent about them, and as they were only colonels 
or privates, how dare they aspire to public honors, or hope 



^ or public gratitude ! In November last, indeed, we were 
<vo]d that Mr. Monroe deserved to be president, amongst 
other reasons, because he was a captain and fought bravely 
at Trenton, and because he subsequently rose to the rank 
of colonel ; and no doubt, these were high recommendations 
in his favor, although " the annals of the war are silent upon 
the subject" — -but now the case is wholly altered, ^r it is-" 
Mr. Heister who is the candidate ; he too was a captain a^d 
fought bravely at Long Island, he too rose to the rank of 
colontl, but " the annals of the v/arsay nothing about him," 
and although in this respect, he is on a level with Mr. 
.IVIonroe and thousands of other brave men, he must not seek 
the suffrages of his countrymen, because he did not rival a 
Greene, or a Washington ! It is needless to comment upon 
bucli an unworthy effort to rob the veterans of the revolution 
of the honor and gratitude of their country; If the annals 
of the war could not transmit to posterity, the names of all 
those who fought for our independence, that independence 
itself is a monument of their services and sufferings, 
which time alone can deface or destroy. 

Nor is it necessary to wipe away the stain, which such as- 
persions as these would fix upon the national character : the 
annals of peace bear ample testimony that his countrymen 
were, grateful for Mr. Heister's services in war : his neighbors, 
friends, and companions in arms, have on all occasions testified 
their grsithixde^hi^conjerring- upon liitn every civic honor in 
their gift: — >1. He was chosen a member of the con- 
vention of 1787, appointed to consider the constitution, 
then proposed for the union : — 2. He was elected in 1789, a 
member of the convention appointed to prepare the present 
constitution of Pennsylvania:— 3. He was for many years 
elected a member of the general assembly : — L He was ap- 
pointed an associate judge by governor Mifflin, and i-eceived 
iVom that, amiable man, brave soldier, and sound patriot, 
other testiuionies of his confidence : — 5. He has long served 
as a member of the congress of the United States : — 6. He 
never sought or held any situation yieldingthe emoluments of 
ofRce, but in every instance has served the public, at a sacrifice 
of his personal interests and comforts : how he has served 
his country is best decided by the voice of his immediate 
constituents :— 7. He never was a candidate that he was 
iiot elected ; and at the most recent election he received 
above three tliousand %'Otes, whilst his opponentreccived less 
than eight hundred. 

Mr. Carey and his associates may not regard these long.^ 
faithful, and disinterested services, in the field, on the bench, 
and in the senatej as '•' claims" to pubiic regard, because 



they intend to astonish us, perhaps, with ;i history, as yer. 
unpublished, of the '' claims" of their candidate, which far 
surpassthose of Mr. Heister : but, until they shall lay before 
the people some evidence of the superior " merits on the score 
of service" of Mr. Findlay, we are persuaded that these at- 
tacks upon Mr. Heister will have no other effect than to 
invite scrutiny, which the more rigid it may be the mort; 
serviceable it will be found. 

3. Of the principles of Mr. Helstev. His opposers, be- 
ing utterly unable to fix upon his private life a single stain ; 
or, even with the aid of foul calumny, to tarnish his military 
reputation, have undertaken to question the orthodoxy and 
consistency of Mr. Heister's principles as a politician, 
^-So unerring, and so consistent, have Mr. Mathew 
Carey and his associates been in their political career, that 
they demand from Mr. Heister nothing less than infallibility : 
it is not enough for them, that he fought and suffered to se- 
cure to them, in common with us all, the blessings which we 
enjoy ; it is not enough, that those who know him best have 
invariably honored him with all those trusts, which demand 
capacity and integrity ; it is not enougli that he has been 
always a republican, and never a seeker or holder of place 
or perquisites — no, all this will not do for Mr. Carey and 
hs co-addressers, they insist that unless every vote, of seve- 
ral thousand, given by Mr. Heister, was exactly as they now 
say it ought to have been, he ought not to be elected gover- 
nor. 

We will not stop to discuss the justice or the charity of 
this demand for perfection, but will proceed to meet the 
opposers of Mr. Heister with their own weapons ; having lit- 
tle doubt, but that we shall be able to prostrate them upon 
their own ground. Let us^then enquire what have been the 
principles of Mr. Heister ? 

In the first place Mr. Heister is accused, anonymouslv% of 
having voted against the ratification by Pennsylvania of the 
constitution of the United States, in the convention of 17S7. 
We take this weapon at once, which was intended to assail 
him, and shall make it a shield in his defence. If the oppo- 
sers of Mr. Heister had informed the people of Pennsylva- 
nia, that the constitution which he voted against had those 
provisions, by which " the great and essential principles 
of free government were recognized," the information 
v/ould have explained his early and sterling republi- 
canism ; but they shly call it the constitution of the 
United States, thereby conveying the idea that it v/as 
the coirstitution :\s it is nov/ in force : but the freemen of 
Pennsylvania surely must be too well informed to be dcceiv- 



6 

ed by this sorry artifice, and too proud not to resent such au 
insult to their memory and understanding. The constitu- 
tion., which Mr. Heister voted against, made no provision 
for the safety and enjovment of many of the most inestima- 
ble rights of a free people, and as a faithful republican, he 
voted against an instrument so entirely defective upon points 
so essential : for instance, 1. that constitution did not prohi- 
bit congress from interfering with the rights of conscience ; 
— 2. that constitution contained no provision securing the 
freedom of speech and of the press ; — 3. it did not reserve 
CO the people the right to assemble and petition against 
grievances — 4, no provision was made securing to the peo- 
ple the right of bearing arms : — 5. no provision was made 
against quartering soldiers upon the people : — 6. the people^ 
were not secured by it from unreasonable searches and sei- 
zures :— r. no provision was made to secure freemen from 
accusation imless by presentment by grand jury : — 8. exces- 
sive bail, excessive fines, and cruel punishments, were not 
provided against : — 9, no provision was made securing to 
the people the rights not delegated: — 10. no provision was 
made against, the seizure of private property for public use 
without compensation : It was against an instrument thus 
imperfect that Mr. Heister voted, not because he op- 
posed the adoption of a constitution for the union, 
but because he cherished the liberties of his countrymen too 
dearly to put them to hazard, and because he was apprehen- 
sive that the powers of the general government under the 
proposed constitution, were too extensive, and would even- 
tually absorb those of the individual states. Nor was he sin- 
gular in opposition, or unfounded in his alarm, for the most 
distinguished patriots of the revolution concurred with him in 
opposition, andtlie very persons, who in 1787 adopted the im- 
perfect constitution, in 1789 introduced the very provisions 
Tfow in force.^ the absence of which induced the opposition of 
1 787. Amongst those v/ho considered the constitution of 1 787 
imperfect, or those who voted against it, history records 
tlie names of Thomas Jefferson, George Clinton, El- 
bridge Gerry, Patrick Henrj^, James Moni-oe, and many 
others of the ablest men and distinguished republicans that 
America has produced ; and in Pennsylvania the names of 
Robert Whitehill, John Smilie, Wm. Findley of Westmore- 
land, John Harris- John Whitehill, and other old whigs, are - 
recorded on the same page with that of Joseph Heister, as 
ihe jealous and intrepid advocates of the substantial rights 
of freemen . those gentlemen voted against the adoption of 
r.he constitution in its imperfect state, but at the same time 
declared iii o> solemn protest their readiness to receive a 



constitution, which would preserve the inestimable and sa- 
cred rights, which the aimcndments afterwards introduced 
effectually secured. Unless, therefore, the people of the pre- 
sent day can suppose, that all those gentlemen, whom we have 
named, were unworthy of all the honors and confidence con- 
ferred upon them by their grateful country, we shall claim 
from the republicans of Pennsylvania their votes for Mr. 
He ster in gratitude for the very zeal in 1787 which his op- 
posers condemn. 

Even those who voted differently from Mr. Heister in 
1787, confessed the weight of his objections — " I do not,'' 
said Dr. Frankliu, "entirely approve of this constitution" — 
but they argued, and Dr. Franklin among the rest, that the 
urgency of the case demanded the adoption of the instrument, 
and that its faults might be remedied by subsequent amend- 
ment: Mr. Heister, however, did not consider himself au- 
thorised to vote for an imperfect constitution, or to commit, 
the rights of the people to the chances of future alterations, 
but maintained that the instrument, if imperfect, ought to 
be at once made sound. Such were the motives of those 
who took opposite sides ; those motives have ever since 
been regarded by liberal men as purej but it remained i'oi- 
some of the most inconsistent partisans of the present 
day, to impeach the integrity of men whose virtues and 
sei'vices have long been honored by, and have long honored, 
their country. 

Having thus brought Mr. Heister, as we trust, with un- 
diminished reputation, through the revolutionary war, and 
the trying moments when the constitution of the United 
States was discussed, and having shewn that thus far he 
maintained the character of an intrepid soldier and sound 
whig, we now proceed to meet the objections of Mr. Ma- 
thew Carey and his associates. We regret exceedingly the 
necessity, which our respect for truth and justice impose?, 
upon us, in some instances, positively to deny the correct- 
ness, and in others to expose the fallaciousness, of many oi 
the assertions of those gentlemen : when v/e read their ad- 
dress, we cannot but feel and express our astonishment a': 
their unhesitatingly declaring, what in some cases we per- 
sonally know to be unfounded, and in others vv'hat was so 
susceptible of explanation, if they had thought proper to 
seek it. It does not become us, however, when so little 
circumspection is evinced in matters of such importance, to 
have greater respect for those gentlemen than they have 
for themselves ; and, therefore, we shall sp&ak with the 
frankness of freemen. 

Those gentlemen assert, that, in the instances in which 



Mr. PIcister took a decided part, in the course of his politi- 
cal life, he was radically wrong, that he committed sins of 
a deep dye, and that"- his conduct has beehin direct hostility 
to the principles of the democratic party." It is scarcely 
])ossible to conceive an assertion so positive, with so little 
Lo sustain it : it is fortunate, however, that such assertions 
are made, for they lead to enquiries? which more and more 
convince us of the uprightness and intelligence of Mr. 
Heister. The address of Mr. Carey refers to the minutes 
of the convention, assembled in 1789, to prepare the pre- 
sent constitution of this state, for the evidence of its asser- 
tions, and we rejoice at the fact j for if there is any record, 
which, more than another, establishes the claims of Mr Heis- 
ter to the gratitude of his countrymen, those minutes are 
that instrument. If you can procure them, defy the oppo- 
sers of Mr. Heister to an open scrutiny into his votes upon 
every question, for it will then be found, that Mr. Heister 
supported all those parts of the constitution, which are re- 
garded as its most republican features, and that he advocat- 
ed amendments, which if they had been adopted would have 
rendered that instrument less liable than it is to objection* 

The whole political life of Mr. Heister lay open before 
Mr. Carey and his associates : the minutes of two conven- 
tions — the journals of the legislature — and the journals of 
congress: Mr. Heister is seen engaged in the most trying 
of all duties, in assisting to frame a rule of government for 
the union, and a rule of government for this state . he is 
next seen voting as a legislator under the systems which he 
had assisted in establishing : yet with all these materials at 
their command, his opposers are unable to fix upon more 
than one vote, to which they can object! If we wanted ar- 
guments in his favor, what could be so strong as this ? 
What, if we desired proofs of his princples, could bear better 
testimony ? 

In the convention of 1789- — 1790, every political princi- 
ple dear to man, or essential to his safety, liberty and happi- 
ness, was discussed : on interesting questions the ijeas 
and nays were called one hundred and twenty-four 
times — yet Joseph Heister is found but once voting, as his 
opposers say, improperly — grateful encomium from them I 
high recommendation to his country ! 

Now, if we suppose, that even in one case out of one hun- 
dred and twenty-four, Mr. Heister voted improperly, we 
ought first to ascertain that his motives were incorrect, ere 
,ve condemn him — but is it just, is it charitable, to test bis 
principles by a solitary vote .^ if he once voted incorrectly, 
s t}'.?!t vote to cancel his claim to respect for having voted 



correctly one hundred and twenty-three times ? Or if he 
voted improperly thirty years ago, in one case of so nianVj 
are we to condemn him as if he still remained in error ? Dr. 
Franklin, who, we humbly conceive, was as wise a man as 
Mr. Mathew Carey or any of his associates, declared in the 
convention of 1787— that " having lived long, he had expe- 
" rienced many instances of being obliged by better infor- 
" mation or fuller consideration, to change his opinions even 
" on important subjects, which he once thought right but 
" found to be otherwise :" " As I grow older," he added^ 
" I am now apt to doubt my own judgment and to pay more 
*' respect to that of others" — But no such indulgence is 
granted to Mr. Heisterby hisopposers ; he must be put aside 
now for a single vote given thirty years ago, and that vote 
wrong only in the estimation of his opposers themselves ! 
Which of those opposers would submit to such an ordeal ? 
one of them has written a book to let the world know hov/ 
often he has been mistaken himself, and no doubt he will 
have matter for another chapter from the specimen before us. 

So, that, even if it was true, that Mr. Heister had thirty 
years ago been radically wrong, and had then in one instance 
out of one hundred and twenty-four, voted in hostility to de- 
mocratic principles, it would be as cruel as absurd to withhold 
from him your confidence on that account now. But, we will 
endeavor to convince you, that Mr. Heister's single vote was 
not of the obnoxious nature which is asserted, or if it was that 
all the old whigs of Pennsylvania were alike radically wrong, 
political sinners, and opposers of democratic principles 
with Mr. Heister — a conclusion too monstrous to follow from. 
the mere self-sufficiency of men of the present day. 

What, then, is this radical error, which by its singleness and 
singularity is to destroy the merits of a long political life, 
otherwise uniform ? Would it not be supposed that Mr. Heis- 
ter had voted to return to the yoke of England, that he had 
urged the creation of a king and nobility, or proposed some- 
thing else as wicked and abominable ? Would it not be imagined 
that he had voted against some fundamental principle in the 
constitution or bill of rights I Yet, nothing of this kind is pre- 
tended — what, then, was the vote ? Why Mr. Heister voted, 
that young- men between the ages of 21 and 22 should not 
vote at electionsy unless they paid a tax, or unless theirfatheis 
toerefreeh o Iders. 

Such is the " political sin of a deep dye," of which Mr^ 
Heister is accused : this is the vote which his opposers say 
was radically wrong, and " in direct hostility to the principles 
of the democratic party ;" let us see, if this accvation is r.o 
serious* 



10 

Men, charitably inclined, would have paused ere they de- 
nounced a veteran of the revolution, and an uniform republi 
can, as unworthy of the confidence of his country, for merely 
voting according to his best judgment upon a point not fun- 
damental : yet accusation is proclaimed, without any regard 
for motives/and even without a true knowlege of the nature 
of the vote given, and that too by persons who are eternally 
boasting of their moderation, affecting the most bewitching li- 
berality, and modestly undertaking to prove every body in 
fault but themselves. 

But — what, after all, is the nature of this sin of a deep dye ? 
— -Ever since representative government has been in opera- 
tion, it has been held to be a sound political axiom, that the 
payers of taxes should be represented, or in other words? 
that those who pay taxes should vote at elections ; but it 
never has been contendedthat those who do not pay taxes, 
sh ould have equal rights with those who do. The necessity 
of the case required that the payment of a tax should 
be ascertainable on the day of election, and this necessity 
demanded a previous assessment : — none, however, could 
be assessed until their arrival at the age of 21, and thus it 
became difficult for persons between 21 and 22 to vote, sc 
many of them arriving at 21 after the day of assessment 
and before the day of election. To remedy this inconve- 
nience, it was proposed to vary the fundamental principle. 
that none should vote without paying taxes, and to grant 
the power to vote as a msitter o( mdul^ence^ not at all of right^ 
to young men so situated : the extension of an indulgence f 
ro such a length was objected to, as inconsistent with fun- 
damental principles, and likely to be pernicious in its effects; 
and, instead of an indiscriminate extension, it was proposed 
to limit the power to the sons of freeholders, from whose es« 
tates there was a certainty of the receipt of taxes. So that, in 
fact, the questijn was not one involving any principle, oi 
depriving young men of any right, but it was a question of 
propriety altogether, hoxvfar the fundamental principle, that 
none should vote without paying a tax, ought to be depart- 
ed from. 

That this was so considered must, we think, be obvious 
from the slightest consideration ; and if there is still any 
doubt, it is removed by referring to the constitution of 1776^ 
an instrument principally prepared by Dr. Franklin, and 
adopted by a convention worthy of such a colleague. It v/iU 
not be believed, that in 1776, Dr. Fi-anklin and his com- 
patriots were radically wrong, that they committed sins of a 
deep dye, that they were inimical to the. principles of a re- 



11 

public, ot that they desired to deprive any description of 
persons of their rights — even if Mr Mathew Carey and 
his co-addressers should say so : yet Dr. Franklin and his 
colleagues in 177-6, prepared and adopted a constitution, the 
6th article of the 7th chapter of which is as follows : 

" Section 0. Every freeman of the full age of 21 years, 
" having resided in the state for the space of one whole 
" year next beforethe day of election for representatives, and 
" paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right 
" of an elector. Provided always, that sons of freeholders^ 
" of the age of 21 years, shall be entitled to vote, although 
"' they have not paid taxes,'''' 

Now, unless the people will believe that the frame rs of 
this section, some of the wisest men and soundest republi- 
cans that history mentions, were all apostates and enemies 
of republican principles, it i? in vain for Mr. Carey and his 
associates to assert that the provision in this section was a 
*^ political sin of a deep dye" — yet, it is for voting as Dr. 
Franklin and his cr)mpatriots did in this case, that Mr. 
Heister is denounced as an enemy of the principles of our 
republic ! 

But if the people forget Dr. Franklin and his colleagues, 
they at least know the present governor Mr. Snyder^ they 
know, Mr. William Findley^ of Westmoreland, Mr. John 
Smilie^ of Fayette, Mr. Albert Gallatin^ our present minister 
to France, Mr. Robert TVhitehill, of Cumberland, and the op- 
posers of Mr. Heister will not dare to call those gentlemen 
" radically wrong," " political sinners of a deep dye," or "in- 
imical to democracy :" yet we shall now shew, that all of those 
gentlemen, the leading whigs of Pennsylvania, not only voted 
to introduce the very principle, for which Mr. Heister voted 
and is now denounced, but that they voted to introduce a re- 
solution whichproposed to deprive every perso?i of a vote who 
had not K freehold or other taxable property to a particular 
amount.-' 

In the convention which framed the present constitution, 
Dec. 10, 1789, a resolution was offL-red for the appointment 
of a committee of nine to prepare and report a draught cf a 
constitution. 

" It was then moved by Mr. William Findley, fof West- 
moreland^J seconded by Mr. Boyd, 

"■ I'o postpone the consideration of the said resolution in or- 
der to introduce the following, viz. •: 

" Resolved — That every freeman of the age of twenty-one 

"' years, having resided j^ears in the United Slates, or 

.'' ■ ' ■ • years in this commonv/ealth, one of which at least 



12 

"■^ in the county or district next before the election where he 
'* claims his vote, and rvho hath been possessed in freehold 
'•' estate or other taxable property to the value of " for 
" the "ipact of one -whole year next before the election^ and the 
" sons of freeholders^ qualified with respect to age and resi- 
" clence as is described above, shall have a right to vote for 
" either branch of the legislature." 

" On the question — '■'■ v/ill the convention agree to the post- 
" ponement for the aforesaid purpose, the yeas and nays were 
'' called by Mr. William Findley, fof JVestmoreland,J and 
were as follovv', viz* 

YEAS. 
Enoch Edwards William Todd 

V/m. Gibbons ' Alex. Addison 

Thomas Ross John Hoge 

James Boyd David Reddiclc 

Mobert Vvhitehill John Smilie 

fames Power Albert Gallatin 

Christian Lower James M'Lean 

Abraham I^incoln George Mathews 

Baltzer Gthr Lindsay Coates 

Thomas Mawhorter Jonathan Shoemaker 

Joseph Powell John Gloninger 

fohn Piper Wm. Brown 

Charles Smith Andrew Henderson 

Simon Snyder Thomas Beale — 29. 

William Findley 

' NAYS. 
(Unnecessary to particularize) — 34. 

So the above resolution was rejected. It appears then, that, 
li Mr. Heister ought to be denounced, for having voted in the 
same convention, tiiat the sons of freeholders between 21 and 22, 
and no others, should vote xuithout paying taxes, (a pro position 
hivohing no radical principle) Messrs. Snyder, Gallatin, 
Findley, Smilie, and others should have been long ago pro- 
scribed, because they voted not only to limit the privilege of 
voting to the sons of freeholders, hvit to rnxxodnct a resolution 
depriving every freeman of a vote, who had not held for a year . 
a freehold or other estate to a specific amount— a resolution 
Tvhich involved a fmdamental principle. 

Yet no one has ever heard them denounced for their vote ; 
on the contrary, they have all been honored and held up as 
the pillars of the republic. If it should be said that they 
afterwards changed their opinions, that they voted to permit 
men v,ho were not freeholders and the sons of men not free- 
holders to become electors^ and that having so changed they 



13 

became purified, we ask why the same indulgence is not due 
to Mr. Heister ? if he, like the rest, gave an improper vote, 
and now acquiesces in the change, why is he alone to be 
denounced for his vote on a question of propriety^ whilst 
those who voted improperly on a question of principle^ are 
excused, nay honored ? The best men may honestly suppose 
that right, which others may believe to be wrong, but it is 
no evidence that a man is wrong, because he is denounced 
for his opinion : the best way to test, is to enquire into the 
motives, and if these are pure, who can have the audacity 
to proscribe but those who have no characterto lose. That 
Mr. Heister could have had no sinister motive for his vote, 
any more than Messrs. Snyder, &c. had for theirs, must be 
admitted by every generous mind, yet he is as wantonly and 
as indecently denounced, as if his intentions had been base 
and dishonorable. 

Nor are the resolution and the vote, above quoted, the only 
evidence that you will find, in the minutes of the convention, 
to prove that Mr. Heister was not singular or unsupported 
in his opinion : on the 11th December, 1789, Messrs, James 
Wilson, William Irvine, William Lewis, Edward Hand, 
William Findley, Henr>' Miller, James Ross, Alexander 
Addison, and Charles Smith, were appointed by the con- 
vention a committee to draught a constitution ; and on the 
21st of December, 1789, that committee reported a draught, 
the 2d section, 3d article of which was as follows : 

Art. 2, sec. 3. *' In elections by citizens, every freeman 
" of the age of 21 years, having resided in the state tv/o 
" years before the day of election respectively, and paid 
" taxes within that time, shall enjoy the rights of an elector. 
" The sons of freeholders, of the age aforesaid, shall be en- 
" titled to vote, though they have not paid taxes." 

So that unless a majority of this committee were ene-i^ 
mies to republican principles, Mr. Heister is again supported 
in his opinion by their authority, and it will scarcely be 
contended by his opposers, great as their self-confidence 
may be, that such was the case. 

From the 23d December, 1789 to the 4th of February, 
17 90, the convention sat in committee of the whole, discus- 
sing the proposed constitution ; and on the 5th of February, 
1790, the committee of the whole reported the constitution 
to the convention: that instrument, as now approved of by 
a majority of the committee, in committee of the whole, 
contained the following : 

Art. 3, sec. 1. " in elections by the citizens every frce- 
■' man of the age of 21 years, having resided in the state 
" tVi'o years next before the days of election respect! vol}', 



14 

" and paid state or county taxes within that tiaie, which 
<■ ta^cs shall have been assessed upon him at least sis 
•' months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an 
" elector." 

So that the convention decided, notjo grant the privi- 
lege of voting, ivithout paying taxes^ even to the sons of 
freeholders^ sir ik\i\'^t\nt clause respecting young men en- 
tirely otit of the article. All these circumstances prove 
that, to say the least of it, the convention had much difficulty 
and doubt about the question : and thus far the majority not 
only sustained the opinion of Mr. lieister, but actually de- 
cided to go further than he proposed. 

On the 6th of February, 1790, the debates commenced in 
the convention upon the constitutiouj as reported by .the com- 
mittee of the whole, with the section relative to voting, as last 
quoted ; that is, excluding all persons whatever from voting 
unless thev paid taxes. When this section came under con- 
sideration', Mr. Sitgreaves, seconded by Mr. Mawhorter, 
moved to add this proviso : 

" Provided, that the sons of persons qualified as aforesaid, 
" between the ages of 21 and 22, shall be entitled to vote, al- 
" though thev shall not have paid taxes." 

It v/as then moved, by Mr. Ogden, seconded by Mr. Hand, 
to strike out of this proviso the Myord persoiis^ and to substi- 
tute the word freeholders. On this motion the yeas were 12, 
and the nays 46, and of the 12, Mr. Heister was one. 

The question then arose, will the convention agree to the 
proviso of Mr. Sitgreaves ? and there were for the proviso 
32, against it 30 — there being a majority of tAvo only in 
favor of admitting any young men whatever, between 21 
and 22, to vote without paying taxes : amongst the 20, were 
Mr. Heister, Mr. Albert'Gf.ilatin, Mr. Thomas M'Kean, 
Mr. Hilary Baker, and other gentlemen always acknov/leged 
lo be Republicans, and not deserving the character now gi- 
ven of them. 

r>Ir. Heister had heard all the arguments for and against 
the question, he recollected that Dr. Franklin and his re- 
publican colleagues of 1776, had adopted the principle 
which he thought best ; he knew that the convention had 
been friendly to the principle at first, and he did not alter 
his first opinion. The majority decided ultimately against 
him, he acquiesced, and so the matter has remained until 
this solitary exercise of his best judgment, upon a question 
that nearly oOyears ago divided tiie best men, is nowatthis 
late dav, made the basis of an ungenerous attack upon his 
fame and pretension^. Whoever v/ill exam' n- the minut'.-^ 



oi the conv-ention, v/ill perceive that pohtical principles or 
pai'ty had nothing to do Avith the question ; and that many 
of those, who voted for the aristocratical features of the 
constitution, in this case opposed Mr. Heister. Yet Mr. 
Carey's address asserts that this vote is to be a test of prin- 
ciples, and it tells " all those who are in favor of an equalitv 
of rights" to vote against Mr. Heister, as if r?^/2/5 had been 
at all in question — as if Mr. Heister had not voted to put 
all men upon an equality, and that none should vote, free- 
holders or others, without paying taxes. For we again 
repeat it, the question was not about rights, but about 
the expediency of going beyond rights. Mr. Heister 
thought and voted that none should be electors who had 
not paid taxes, but he thought that if this principle was 
%-aried from, it ought to be still so far in return for taxation, 
as to confine it to cases, in which no doubt about the pa^-- 
ment of taxes by the fathers could exist. 

But, afterall,if Mr. Heister was wrong, he was in the com- 
pany of Franklin and such men, as by the purity of their 
motives and actions do themselves offer an ample shield to 
defend him ^ and he was infinitely less in error, than hun- 
dreds of the best M'higs of Pennsylvania whose characters 
have never been assailed ; unless, indeed, at the present 
moment, through IMr. Heister. 

These, however, and such like considerations, formed no 
part of the enquiry of Messrs. Carey, Kolgate, Sec. Chari- 
table allovv-ances, comparisons with other votes and constitu- 
tions, a fair and manly quotation of all that was in the 
minutes on the suliject, were not to have been expected from 
persons, v/ho denounce such of their fellow citizens as disa- 
gree with them at the present election, as men actuated by the 
basest motives — conduct, all the credit of which, we trusi 
they may long live to enjoy. 

We hope, fellow citizens, that we shall be as 

able to disappoint, and to expose, the unbecoming means 
adopted to ])romote the viev/s of the opposers of Mr. Heis- 
ters, as we flatter ourselves we have been in these two letters. 
We shall continue to address } ou whilst an objection shall be 
made, or a doubt shall exist : — all that we ask, and that v/e 
do earnestly, is a patient perusal of explanations, necessarib 
longer than Ave could wish. 

JOHN GOODMAN, 
JOSEPH REED, 
): W. THOMPSON, 
ISAAC BOYER, 
W. J. DUANE. 

: biladciphia, June If, 1817, 



CIRCULAR LETTER" 

No. III. 



TO THE EEPUBLICJIJV COMMITTEES OF 
CORRESPOJ^DEJ^CE. 

Fellow Citizens. — We endeavoured in our first letter, 
and we hope with effect, to prove, that the Carlisle conven* 
lion had not one, whilst the meeting at Harrisburgh had all, 
of the odious characteristics of a caucus, as described i^ 
the Olive i»ranch: And, in our second letter, we defended 
and explained the character, services and principles of Mr* 
Heister, from the year 1776, to the year 1790. 

In the present letter, we propose to notice an accusation, 
made, by Mr. Carey and his associates, against Mr. Heister 
and his friends ; not so much from an opinion that a de« 
fence is necessary to either, as because the opportunity is 
thus presented, of bringing our opposers upon the public 
stage with ourselves, for public instruction, upon some 
points of an interesting nature. The charge, for the pur- 
pose of elucidation, may be thus divided: 1. Mr. Carey* 
and his associates assert, that Mr, Heister and his friends 
have made common cause with the federal party : 2. they 
assert that this alleged combination is violently inconsistent 
with advice, which they say, Mr. Heister gave in 1804 to his 
constituents, against any combination with federalists: 
3. they assert that this alleged compact is entered into, in 
order that Mr. Heister and his friends may obtain offices 
for themselves. 

1 . '« ur inclination prompts us not to attribute these decla- 
rations to disreputable motives; and yet, there musthave been 
motives of some kind for their invention and utterance. We 
cannot suppose that the author of the address sat down to 
Write it, with an indifference which would be unbecoming even 
when about to issue an anonymous paragraph : from his age 
and his character we must conclude, unless we do violence to 
both,thathe wrote the address with a lull knowlege oi whathc 
^as about. What, then, were his objects, when he deiibe- 



rately accused us, as we have above stated ?>. Was it his inten- 
tion to give fair and well-founded information to the people? 
we cannot suppose so, because his charges are the fruits of 
suspicion alone. Had he the knowlege of a single fact to 
justify the promulgation of charges so formal and decisive ? 
we do not believe that he had, because we, who, if guilty, 
would surely know, can truly assert that his accusation is 
utterly groundless. Must he not have designed to do 
us an injustice, and to weaken our claims to a candid 
hearing from our countrymen ? we think that we a' e war- 
ranted in saying so, by his attributing to us sinister motives, 
upon his own bare surmise, or as the echo of anonymous ca- 
lumniations. If the aim of the address was not to inform 
the people, what was its object, for object there must have 
been in contemplation? Shall we be uncharitable or incor- 
rect, when we say, that, imitating the writer of the Harris- 
burgh address, Mr. Carey resolved to enlist upon his side 
tile angry passions and unworthy prejudices, of one por- 
tion of the community, since he had no hope of enlightening 
the minds, or gratifying the expectations, of the liberal and 
intelligent ? 

It is in vain that we endeavor, by our own pencil, to exhibit 
to our countrymen an exact likeness of Mr. Carey, whilst 
he thus unworthily acts the partizan, and unjustly impeaches 
the motives of his fellow citizens j but turning to his 
" Olive Branch." we find his picture drawn by the hand of 
a master, and that master himself: " TVriters" says he, 
" having espoused a party make their own partizans angels 
*' of light, and their opponents demons incarnate. Among 
'* the frightful consequences, resulting from this odious 
*' practice, a plain and palpable one presents itself: these 
*' horrible portraits engender a satanic spirit of hatred, 
" malice, and abhorrence in the parties towards each other. 
" Men on both sides, whose views are perfectly pure and 
'* public spirited, are to each other objects of distrust and 
" jealousy. We attach all possible guilt and wickedness— 
** political at least — to our opponents — and then detest the 
*' hob-goblins We have ourselves created." 

If the conduct of Mr. Carey, from his first movement in 
relation to the present contest, had not been utterly at vari- 
ance with the doctrines of the Olive Branch, we woiJd express 
our astonishment, that a person, who could thus so accurately 
take the likeness of a factious partizan, should btcome so 
soon enamoured with the picture, as to desire to become the 
original. Nothing can more truly describe the conduct of 
Mr. Carey himself, than this extract from his book ; whilst 
he has fancied himself and his colleagues to be angels, he 



has convinced himself that we are demons incarnate, and it 
is therefore not surprising that detesting the hobgoblins" of 
his own creation, he has attributed to us all manner of 
wickedness. 

Having thus adopted the most charitable conclusion, that 
Mr. Carey has accused us under the influence of the poli- 
tical distemper, which he describes in his book, he may from 
this circumstance be convinced, that we do not entertain 
towards him that satanical spirit, which unhappily roams at 
large at the present moment. At the same time, however, 
we shall take care to develope his inconsistencies, whilst 
releasing ourselves from his imputations, not from any 
desire or necessity as to Mr. Carey personally, but in the 
execution of a duty which we owe to the public. 

The accusation, that we have made common cause with 
the federal party, implies, that Mr. Carey and his associates 
consider any combination with federalists— disgraceful ; 
and yet it is notorious that Mr. Carey, Mr. Groves, and 
nearly all the present partizans of Mr. Findlay in this district, 
did, in 1805, make common cause with the federal party, to 
prevent the election of the present governor of Pennsyl- 
vania : this is not, like Mr. Carey's present accusation 
against us, supposititious, because on that occasion there was 
not only concert in secret acticJn, but communion in open 
meeting. With what propriety, then, can those gentlemen 
now pronounce that to be disgraceful, which they laboured 
so earnestly to accomplish themselves ? How indecorous 
must the accusation against us be, coming from those, who, 
if to combine is a sin, should scarcely have been forgiven, 
so great was their own offence ? We are not so illiberal as to 
say that their motives were at that time corrupt, we do not 
even say that their conduct was an offence ; that it was an 
offence is a charge now made by themselves in their anxi- 
ety to implicate us, and if they will persist in saying that 
combination implies corruption, they pass sentence of shame 
upon themselves. 

2. But our intention is not merely to enumerate the 
proofs of the inconsistency of Mr. Carey and his friends : 
we prefer a full investigation of every question which they 
shall bring before the public. It is asserted by those gen- 
tlemen, after having themselves created the hobgoblin of a 
common cause with the federal party, that such a combina- 
tion is inconsistent with Mr. Heister's opinion in 1804 : in 
the first place, we say, that as there is not a combination, 
the inference is futile ; but let us amuse ourselves with this 
hobgoblin — if Mr. Heister was in 1804 opposed to a com- 
bination, so were Mr. Carey and his friendsj and yet the 



the next year Mr. Carey and his friends did make the comr 
bination ; so that in this case also the accusation comes 
with a bad grace from a party in the offence, if such it was. 
But, we had rather meet this question at large : We con- 
tend that, it might have been perfectly correct, in 1804, to 
object to a political combination with the federal party, and 
yet that it might not now be at all injurious even to invite 
the co-operation of former opponents, in support of a present 
and common object — 1. because., in 1804, the federal party 
was in full vigor ; — 2. because., the members of it then co- 
operated with persons in other states, who were extreme 
in their objects and actions •,- — 3. because., thirteen years 
have since elapsed ;- — 4-. because the result of the wars in 
Europe, and the events of the war in which our own country 
tvas lately engaged, have produced a deep impresssion in 
favor of our own political institutions, and of a national cha- 
racter; — 5. because party spirit is now, happily, almost 
extinct ; — 6. because it is our desire to regard those, who 
have heretofore been estranged from us, with all the affec- 
tion which Americans, countrymen, fellow citizens, neigh- 
bours, and human beings should have for each other j — and 
7. because w a ^rt persuaded that coldness or indifference, 
not to mention jealousy or dislike, towards our felJow citi- 
zens, are calculated to prevent that unanimous support of 
our liberties, which is essential to their existence. So that, 
even if we had invited the co-operation of federalists, the ac- 
cusation of inconsistency would not be so serious, in our 
estimation, as -' r. Carey and his associates would make it. 
Mr. Heister, however, was nominated by republicans, men 
•who condemn the excesses of ir98 and the abuses of 1817: 
But, if such of our countrymen as call themselves fede- 
ralists, are willing to make common cause, not for us, but in 
support of rights as essential to their happiness as to ours, 
have they not a right to do so ? have we any reason or right 
to object ? Ought we not, on the contrary, to rejoice at their 
conquest over the prejudices, which are shamefully sus- 
tained amongst the people for the advantage of a few ? 

Besides, it is not the mere circumstance of combination 
which ought to be considered, because republicans and 
federalists are every day making common cause to promote 
useful or honorable objects: the realenquirv ought to be, what 
4s THIS coMBiNATioN roRT If its object is to oppose repub- 
lican principles or measures, it is pernicious ; but if its object 
is to accomplish precisely such purposes as the Olive Branch 
declared to be honorable and useful, what must the public 
think of the author of that book, who now not only denoun- 
ces the fancied combination, but asserts upon bare suspicion^ 
that corrantion is the chain of connection ? 



If the state house was in flames, that edifice, in which are 
deposited the records of the rights, and the evidences of 
the properties, of federalists as well as of republicans, would 
not a common cause to extingnish the fire be a sacred duty ? 
If, in such a case, any one should strive to sow dissentions, 
or »o induce the fire-men to throw water at each other 
instead of the building, would it not be suspected, and with 
some reason too, that such a person had been the incendiary, 
anxious to profit by the general distress ' It is useless in- 
deed to ask such a question, for we all recollect that those, 
who did not, during the late war, make common cause to 
support it, were proscribed as traitors, by the very persons 
who are now fulminating their "political anathemas" at an 
imagined compact in support of pure elections. Jf it is 
true, and the Olive Branch says that it is, that even/ free- 
man ought to be alarmed at, and ought to oppose, whatever 
is calculated to vitiate elections : And, if it is true, and th& 
Olive Branch says it is, that the agency of legislators and 
the holding meetings at the seat of government do vitiate 
elections — why shall it be criiuinal or pernicious, for persons 
on former occasions at variance, now to combine in sunport 
of the very key stone ofthe arch of the republic ? why would 
it have been base not to oppose foreign arms, and yet a dis- 
grace to unite in opposing caucuses, proscriptions, and cor- 
ruptions, the most deadly adversaries of a republic? Why 
did Mr. Carey write a book inculcating " mutual forgive- 
ness," and " opposition to whatever is calculated to vitiate 
elections," and yet now denounce suspected concord ia 
executing what he recommended ? The only just object 
of controversy or disputation is to produce reform by con- 
viction : our countrymen have been disputing for twenty 
years, and at one time regarded each other as " demons in- 
carnate ;" yet the moment that this '' r,?- jgoblin" ceases 
to be terrific, an alarm is sounded, and that too by the very 
trump which proclaimed the advantages of "harmony !" 

To excite alarm is, indeed, emphatically the object of 
Mr. Carey's address— and its tendency is to prevent the 
laying of that " inexorable spirit of party," which it was 
supposed the Olive Branch was so well calculated to re- 
move. For that address says very little, if any thing, about 
the' importance of sustaining the principles of a republic, or 
of the imperious necessity of preserving the purity of the 
elective principle: but it strives to persuade the people of 
PennsyK ania, that the preservation of their rights and hap- 
piness depends upon the rigid support of a mere party ascen- 
dancy — instead of a tender attachment to, and jealous 
T/atchfulness ofj those precious principles, which all parties 



6 

at iimts contemn, in order to gratify the avarice or am- 
bition of their leaders. No, we, who have always been 
republicans, and some of us active republicans too, when 
iiome of those who nov;^ impugn our motives were in the 
ranks of the federal party which they now abuse, or 
else hiding within from the political storm which p#lted 
us without — 'We reject as unsound aiid pernicious the 
doctrines inculcated in Mr. Carey's address ; and in 
opposition to them assert, that it is of no consequence 
what the party ascendant is called, 'or what party is 
dominant, if the rights of the people are usurped, as we 
have proved them to have been by a caucus at Harris- 
burgh, upon the authority of Mr. Carey himself: We 
reject as impolitic and unmerciful, the assumption, that 
all those are impure and unworthy of association, who do not 
happen to be within the pale of our own frail notions of what 
is right : we deny that opposing caucuses, and other usur- 
pations of the rights of the people, will destroy the ascen- 
dancy of republicanism ; and we protest against the arro- 
gance, which sets up the holders of places as the republicans 
of Pennsylvania. 

If any of our countrymen, notwithstanding our efforts to 
expose the vast difference that exists between profession 
and practice^ between names 3.nd principles, are still of opi- 
nion that there is any virtue in the indiscriminate adhesion 
to mere party, v/e ask them to open the pages of the Olive 
Branch, that volume which was issued by the very gentle- 
man who would now entrance them with this charm or 
spell of party ascendancy. No one has boasted so 
much as he has done, of the purity of his zeal, and of the 
advantage of his efforts, to promote " mutual forgiveness 
and harmony ;" no one has so strongly or so justly con- 
demned all parties, as he has done, for not making common 
cause in support of common rights and interests : " 1 bless 
the being" said he " who has made me the humble instru- 
" ment to accomplish so holy a purpose as that of allaying 
'•' the horrible violence of party rage, excited by wicked 
*' men." — '' I believe it" said he in another place, " a 
*' sound political maxim, that a thorough-going p.irty 
" man, never was a sound politician" — and yet in the ad- 
dress issued at Harrisburgh, to which Mr. Carey's name 
is affixed, whether with or without his consent the public 
know not, all those Vt'ho will not submit to the *' choice" 
there made, are denounced as apostates and enemies of the 
republic ; and in the address written by Mr. Carey himself, 
the friends of Mr. Heister are declared to be actuated by 
3'?iister motives ; in the same address he denounces those 



who have had the courage to resist pernicious acts clone in 
the name of a party, and he considers the safety of re- 
publicanism to depend upon thoroughgoing measures to sus- 
tain a party ascendancy. In the Olive Branch he declares, 
that " the wealth, numbers, talents and virtues," of the 
federalists, entitle them to a share in the councils of the 
nation, and yet in his late address he tells the republicans of 
Pennsvlvania not to support Mr. Heister, because that- 
gentleman will introduce into our councils some of the 
federalists of this state, forgeting that the late and the 
present governor, have without censure considered the 
federalists not exactly such helots, as our political mode- 
rators would make them. In the same volume, he gives 
the highest applause to those, who stepping out from the 
ranks of both parties, support or oppose measures as con~ 
science directs ; yet in his late address, he attributes to us 
the basest motives for adopting his own advice. 

But, we will lay before you his own words, not for the 
purpose of proving inconsistency, already much more glar- 
ing than we could wish, but because the subject is really 
deserving of public consideration. 

In page 10, of the preface to the Olive Branch, are these 
words : — 

" Will the Norrises, the Latimers, the Wains, the 
*' Lewises, and other such estimable federalists, continue to 
*' regard with apathy the dangers of the country, and not 
" make a bold and decisive stand to rescue her ? No it 
*' cannot be so." 

This was as emphatic an invitation, as language could con- 
vey, to the fedei-alists, to make common cause with Mr. Carey 
and persons of his way of thinking, against dangers v/hich 
threatened the country; yet, we, who sincerel}' believe, that 
the existence of our republic is more likely to be termmated 
by domestic corruptions and gradual usurpations, than by 
foreign arms, are denounced by Mr. Carey, upon his sus- 
picion, that we desire the federalists to make common with 
us — and not only denounced, but accused of being influenced 
by motives, mean in themselves and perfidious towarda 
our supposed allies. 

But to proceed- — the same preface says : 

" In England, the opposition to the ministry is always 
"'• violent, and like the opposition here, is too generally 
'■'• directed against all measure* of government, whether 
*' meritorious or otherwise. But there is in parliament, 
'' a substantial countnj party ^ which occasionally votes with 
** the minister, and occasionally v/ith the opposition, sup- 
" porting or opposing measures as co7iscience directs. It i* 



'' a 77iost imfot'tunate fact^ that, in congress, the number ot 
" members of this description is very small : that body may 
" be generally classed into federalists and democrats, who 
" too frequently vote in solid columns. There are, I grant, 
" laudable exceptions^ but they are rare.^^ 

If we needed an apology for our conduct, since we first 
commenced an opposition to caucuses^ proscriptions^ and 
other abuses^ what could so well answer our purpose as this ? 
If we had any doubts about our right and our duty, to vote 
as conscience directs, would they not by this language be 
removed ? If we had not been aware of the shame of vot- 
ing in solid columns for measures good or bad, would 
we not by his lesson be instructed ? Such was the language 
of Mr. Carey two years ago, yet he now deems voting in 
solid column for a caucus nomination, the perfection of 
republicanism I But these quotations, "emphatic as they 
are, are weak in comparison with this : — 

" This f voting' in solid column) is one of the rvorst fea- 
'• tures in the situation of the country. The indiscriminate 
**• adherence to party ^ and uniform support of party arrange-" 
" ments^ encourage the leaders to proceed to ex- 
" tremities, and to adopt violent and pernicious mea- 
" sures, xvhich the good sense of their followers may 
" reprobate^ but from -which they have not fortitude enough 
*' to rvithhold their support. This has been, in all countries, 
*' the most frightful of the consequences of the unholy and 
" deleterious spirit of faction. Men, originally of the 
" purest hearts and best intentions, are by this ignis fatuus 
*' (infatuation) gradually corrupted^ and led step by step 
" to unite in acts^ which at the commencement of their 
" career they would have recoiled from with horror and 
'''•affright. I believe it a sound political maxim^ that A 
" thorough-going party-man never was a sound po- 
" litician ; for there hardly ever was a party, that did not 
*' fall into errors and crimes, more or less gross, in exact 
" proportion to the folly or the wickedness of its leaders" 

This is a quotation, from the Olive Branch, which in 
every line presents a text for a letter, but surely the subject 
is made so plain in the extract itself, as to require no ex- 
tended commentary. We are thus told in the Olive Branchy 
that the voting in solid column is pernicious in its effects, 
and yet in Mr. Carey^s address^ we are told that it will be 
pei-nicious not to vote in solid column. VVe are told in the 
Olive Branchy that leaders are induced to adopt pernicious 
measures, by their ability to make the people adhere to the 
solid column of party ; and yet in Mr. Carey'' s address we 
are told that we shall injure republicanism if we do not 



adhere to party, in support of a nomindtion which we have 
proved on his own authority to be alarming and pernicious 
in its nature and consequences. We are told, in the Olive 
Branch, that leaders propose measures which their fol- 
lowers reprobate but have not the fortitude to resist; yet, in 
Mr. Carey's addr^ss^ those who have the fortitude to resist 
are denounced for doing so. We are told f?z the Olive 
Branchy that by the infatuation of adherence to party ^ men 
are gradually corrupted and led step by step, to acts, at 
which they would at first have shuddered ; and yet, in his 
address, we are told that unless we adhere to party in sup- 
port of Mr. Carey's favorite candidate, we shall injure re- 
publicanism and prove our own corruption. We are told, 
in his Olive Branch, that a thorough-going party man, never 
was a sound politician ; and yet, in the address, we are told 
that those are unsound, who are not now thorough-going in 
support of a- measure — which, we assert, was adopted by 
leaders in consquence of their supposed ability, to make the 
people vote in solid column, by the infatuatiou of adht-rence 
to party, and through the apprehension of proscription in 
case of resistance. 

There is not, indeed, a sentence in this quotation from the 
Olive Branch, which does not flatly contradict and rebuke 
Mr. Carey's address; nor is there a sentiment in it, which 
does not support the very arguments which we ourselves 
have used. We have told our countrymen, that this vot- 
ing in solid column for measures right or wrong, has been 
pernicious and degrading : We have told them, that it is 
owing to the infatuation of adherence in all cases to mere 
party, that the most odious acts have been perpetrated in 
the name of the people : We have besought thtm net to 
be corrupted or led step by step to commit acts at which 
they ought to shudder : We have urged them to have the 
fortitude to withhold their support whenever their consci- 
ences or judgments are not satisfied or convinced : We 
have warned thtm, that one of the most frightful mischiefs 
of faction, is the corrupting or terrifying good men under 
the name of supporting a party, into votes or m.easures which 
abstractedly would excite their abhorrence. 

So, that far from apprehending any danger from the 
doctrines now advanced by Mr. Carey's addiess, we ought 
to rejoice at so open an avowal ol them — because they enable 
us to contrast them with his convictions at a moment of 
reflection and calmness in his closet — -because we are thus 
enabled to appeal from Mr. Carey as a partizan, to Mr. 
Carey as a public monitor — and because we. arc thus enabled 
to express our astonishment, that so many *'men originally 



10 

" of the purest hearts and soundest hitentions, should by 
" this ig-nis fatuiis^ the indiscriminate adherence to party, 
" be gradually corrupted, and led step by step to unite in 
"acts, which at the commencement of their career they" 
ought " to have recoiled from with horror." 

No, fellow citizens, there is no inconsistency on the part 
of Mr. Heister or his friends, however notorious you may 
now consider the inconsistency of those who accuse us : it 
has been our practice and our pride at all times to vote as our 
consciences directed : we have always regarded a faithful 
adherence to principles, as the best evidence of attachment 
to republicanism: we abhor every effort to keep the pas- 
sions and prejudices of mere party in existence: and we 
hail with delight the almost universal prevalence of Hanno- 
ny throughout the union : The example of New York, in 
electing almost without opposition, a distinguished states- 
man and enlightened patriot to the executive chair, is a happy 
demonstration( that the ruthless spirit of faction has 
been laid in that state by the voice of a virtuous people ;nor 
can we have a doubt, but that such honorable and magnani- 
mous dispositions will influence ere long our countrymen at 
large. The republican governor of New Hampshire, in his 
late communication to the legislature of that state, has incul- 
cated precisely such principles and sentiments as those 
which we have tried to impress upon the freemen of Penn- 
sylvania. Nor can we, without violence to ourselves, omit 
this occasion to pay to the president of the United States, a 
just tribute of that applause and gratefulness which he 
merits and which v/e feel, for his late efforts to merge all 
party names and purposes in the appellation of Americans, 
and in attachment to principles — rather than to men. 

Gratitude to the founders of our republic ! 

duration to our admirable institutions! thanks to a free 
press, even abused as it is — the intollerance of faction has 
ceased to be terrific — the dread of denunciation, for an 
honest difference of opinion v/ith the servants of the people, 
is succeeded by a spirit worthy of Pennsylvania — the " ignis 
fatiius''' of mere names will not lead oar worthy countrymen 
to unite in acts which they ought to shudder at : Thanks 
to the growing intelligence and liberality, becoming a free 
people, we may now without fear avow, that although we have 
been too proud to supplicate the co-operation of such of our 
countrymen as call themselves federalists, it will gratify every 
lover of his country to see them going to the polls, not as it is 
untruly said to elevate men, but to preserve those rights and 
liberties, which they or their fathers assisted to transmit for 
*he common benefit of us all. Such an avowal as this, the 



11 

opposers of Mr. Heister will not have the spirit to makcj 
because they trust to that f*- ignis fatuus,^^ which they 
imagine will lead a majoirity of the people of Pennsylvania 
to bow before the mandate of a caucus : yet tlicy have the 
meanness covertly to exult at the least prospect of aid from 
the very federalists, whom they revile, and whom they 
publicly profess to regard with abhorrence. No, our coun- 
trymen, who call themselves federalits, know perfectly well 
that we have made no compact with them, and yet they see 
ijs denounced, as disgraced for making a common cause, 
which is but the "hobgoblin" of a politically distempered 
imagination, and that too by persons who are whining in 
secret if not for the votes, at least for the indifference, of the 
federal party ! Such conduct as this it is, that we would, 
and that we ought to, be ashamed of: We have with sin- 
cerity avowed our objects and our principles to all our 
countrymen— 'for their nature, we refer to the address of the 
Carlisle convenion of the first of May last — and we ask the 
support of those onlt/y who believe the principles and the 
objects there avowed^ to be sound and honorable. 

JOHN GOODMAN, 
JOSEPH REED, 
J. W. THOMPSON. 
ISAAC BOYER, 
W. J. DUANE. 
Philadelphia, June 2^5 1817. 



CIRCULAR LETTER^ 

No. lY, 



TO THE MErUBLICJlX COMMITTEES OF 
CORliESPOj\U)EXCE. 

What ! anotlicr letter after tlirec that were so long ? 
Even so, follow citizens : nor will this fourtli letter contain 
al! that we have to say. Do you require an apology lor 
this ? If you do, we are prepared to offer one. If VyC des- 
pised public opinio I, and had no respect for ourselves, we 
woii Id have pu!)iished hut a sini>;le address: In that case, we 
would have avoided arguments and adopted assertions ; wc 
would have tried to conliru) piejudiees, not to remove them j 
we would not have explained the claims and merits of Mr. 
Heister. but would have lilled our paij;es witii calumnies 
against his opponent : Such an address would not have de- 
Hianded labor or space ; and we should have been certain 
tliat its calumnies and assertions would be read by tliou- 
sands who would never see or hear their refutation. Un- 
doubtedly such an address might have served a present pur- 
pose mnch better than a deliberate appeal to your patriot- 
ism and good sense ; hut would it have gratified you, or 
done honor to us ? Would you not have been in the end dis- 
gustcil, and we disgraced ? No, fellow citizens, if we could 
not sustain the principles and the candidate that we advo- 
eale, without pursuing the unworthy example of our oppo- 
nents, wc should be content to sec your rights and your 
feelings the sport of faction, for nine years longer. 

i}o not, then, be surprised, much less displeased at the 
extent of our discussion, since its length is a proof of our 
regard for you, and of our consideration for ourselves. 
It would indeed be highly gratifying to us, if we had no 
further occasion to hold the opposers of Mr, Heister up to 
public indignation : it has been an unpleasant task to point 
the linger of scorn at persons, who have claimed respecta- 
bility ; but, they left us no alternative between a manly 
exposition of their indecencies and inconsistencies, and a 
silent acquiescence in frauds upon the public judgment andL 
feeling. We have, nevertheless, in all our appeals to you, 
. acted defensiveJy j and, if we have ut all exhibited an hos- 



tile appearanee, it must be confessed that it was but a just 
retaliation for wanton and unprovoked aggression. 

I'here is an aspersion, upoti the character of Mr. Heis- 
ter, in the address written by Mr. Mathew Carey, and 
signed by himself and other members of the committee 
appointed by the Harrisburgh caucus, to which we call your 
particular attention, and in order that you may attentivelj' 
consider it, we shall make it the sole subject of this 
letter. 

In exposing the misrepresentations, heretofore noticed 
in Mr. Carey's address, we endeavoured to seek an apology 
for them, in the affliction of political phrenzy, or in that 
habitual precipitancy which the Olive Branch avows to be 
characteristic of its author. Although it was imprudent 
on his part positively to assert that the Carlisle convention 
ordered secrecy to be observed, we might account for that 
unfounded assertion in misinformnlion ; and although it was 
indecorous in him to -..ttribute sinister motives to the mem- 
bers of that convention, not only without a tittle of evi- 
dence, but contrary to their solemn declarations, we might 
excuse even that charge, coming from a sort of public or 
indiscriminate accuser. But it is in vain that we seek in 
the ardor of party zeal, or in the impulse of precipitancy, 
any sort of apology jfor that accusation against Mr. Heis- 
ter, ivhich we are now about to mention. On the contrary, 
it conveys a character of premeditation and design, not only 
to rob Mr. Ileister of deserved applause, but to distort an 
act of magnanimity into abase and degrading scheme on the 
part of Mr. Heister to cheat and corrupt his tountrymen. 

Most of you, fellow citizens, must be acquainted, with the 
tjrigin and character of the act passed by the congress of the 
United States, at the session of 181.=7-18i6, altering the 
compensation of its members from a daily pay of sia^ dollars , 
to an annual salary of Jif teen hundred dollars. It is not 
at all our duty or our desire to speak of the arguments for 
or against that measure : all that we have to do is to explain 
to you the conduct of JMr. Heister, as a member of the con- 
gress which passed that act. 

Onthe2Cth of February, 1816, Mr. Heister, in conse- 
quence of the alarming indisposition of a member of his 
family, asked and obtained leave of absence for ten days — 
See page 399, journal H. of R. U. S. 

On the 4th of March, 1816, six days after Mr. Heister 
had obtained leave of absence, and five days after Mr. Heis- 
ter's departure, colonel Johnson of Kentucky, for the first 
time intiod need the subject of compensation, by moving that 
a committee should be appointed, to enquire and report whe- 



ilier the mode of compensation should not be clianged :— 

Sec journal If. R. page 44-3. 

On the 6th of March, colonel Johnson reported a bill to 

change the mode of compensation : — See Journal 11. R. page 

445. 

On the 7th of March all business was postponed, 

except the compensation law — that bill was taken up, de^ 

bated in committee of the mIioIc, altered, reported to the 

house, and by the house passed a first and second time— Seo 
journal H. R. page 451. 

On the 8th of March, the bill was finally pas seti : yeas 81, 
nays 67. Page 458. 

It would be useless to call attention to the precipitancy 
w ith which this bill was passed, if the question had not a 
hearing upon the conduct of Mr. lieister. You see that, 
within/ouj' days after the sul)ject Was first proposed, the 
law was passed : and that even if the cause of Mr. Heister's 
absence had authorisetl his appearance within ten days after 
he left Washington, he must have travelled with unusual 
uclerity, to have returned to give his vote. 

Fortunately considerations or calculations of such a na- 
ture arc not necessary. During his visit to his family at 
Reacliug, lie heard of the introduction and passage of the 
bill almost at the same moment, and then to his friends and 
neighbors expressed his astonishment at the precipitancy 
with which the bill was passed, and his hostility to its prin- 
ciples : And on the same occasion he declared, that he would 
not accept for his own compensation more than six dollars 
per day. 

After his return to Washington City, in the course of 
l^Jarch, 1816, Mr. Heister agaiu expressed his regret, that 
such a law had passed, not only to liis colleagues from 
Pennsylvania, but to gentlemen of respectability, from whom 
we have had the assurance. 

Prior to obtaining leave of absence, Mr. Heister drew , on 
the 24th February, 1816, his pay to the 3d of March, at the 
rate of six dollars per day, receiving from the sergeant at 
arms the sum of 543 dollars. 

The session, however, was protracted, until the close of 
the month of April, 1816, and as usual the sergeant at armsj 
who pays the members, summoned those from Pennsylvania 
to draw the sums due to them respectively. At that time there 
had been drawn by the sergeant at arms, the sum of nine 
hundred and sixty dollars, due to Mr. Heister, at the rate of 
gloOO per year : and accordingly the sergeant at arms ten- 
dered that sum to him, in the presence of several of his col 
leagues ; Mr. Heister declared that he would not accept for 



bis paj, any more ibaii srx dollai's per day, and that tlie 
residue migiit remain in the treasury : the sergeant at arms 
replied that unhss he accepted the full rate of 1500 per 
annum, the surplus over bix dollars \vou!d remain unappro- 
priated, or useless, oi'at all times to his credit: the decla- 
ration of the sergeant at arms was confirmed by several of 
the members of congress, when Mr. Heister said, " i ac- 
'^^ cept this sum, but not for my own benefit, it shall be ap- 
6' propriated by me to some charitable purpose/' 

"When Mr. Ileister returned to his constituents in May, 
181G, several of them enquired relative to the compensation 
act 5 IMr. Heister answered, that, for his own part, he had 
not drawn for his ow n pay, more than the old compensation; 
and, when asked Mhat would be done with fhe surplus, he 
suid that he ',\ ould as soon as his term of sei'vice should ex- 
pire in March following, and as soon as he should have 
drawn the conipensation for the second session, consult his 
constituents and do with the surplus as they should direct, 

Mr. Heistcr's compensensation, for the jirsl session, 
amounted at six dollars per day, to the sum of about S50 
dollars, exclusive of mileage : the sergeant at arms paid hii.i 
l.'iOS : so that there remained, taking into account tlie mile- 
age, which, however, it appears, Mr. Heister did not 
eharge to his country, or accept from it, the sum of about 
600 dollars. If it should be meanly said, that Mr. Heister 
had the sum of 600 dollars in his hands from April 181(5, to 
March 1817, when he gave it to the pooi*, even iluit grovel- 
ling imputation is prostrated by the cir<jumstancethat, iltlse 
paltry interest of 36 dollars was to him of any use, he vo- 
luntarily relisiquished by the mileage, more than twice that 
amount : such is the pitiful character of the op[}osition to 
hiiu, that wj make this incidental remark — we cor.fess with 
mortification that there should be the least occasion for it. 

Nor, indeed, is explanation of that kind necessary, for it 
will be recollected, that soon after congress adjourned, po- 
pular opinion called for a repayment into the treasury, of 
the surplus ; and that at the next session an effort to oblige 
the members to refund was made, and voted for by IMr. Heis- 
ter : so that the retention of the surplus until all questions of 
that kind were at rest, was not only justifiable, but perfect- 
Jy correct. 

The second session o£ihe fomieenth congress began on the 
Sd of December, 1816, and closed on the 4th of March, 
18 1 7. On the 4th of December, col. Johnson proposed, 
and the house of representatives adopted, a i esjlution, ap- 
pointing a committee to enquire into the expediency of re- 
pealing or modifying the compeBsation law^ allowing 130S 



dolliii's per year to cai h mcinber. Tlio comr.iiltee reporfed 
to (lie house of representivtivcs a bill chunking the mode 
and ainoun(orconipetisa(ioii j the bill was amended in com- 
iiiiltee of the viiole; and, on (he 17th of JanuarY, 1817, 
page 223 of journal H. K, the house proceeded to consider 

the amendments reported from the committee of the >vhole 

as follows : 

The first amendment proposed was " to allow a compen- 
sation of six dollars per day to each senator, representative 
and delegate, and six dollars mileage for each 20 uiilesgoing 
to and returning from congress" — in fact, a return to the old 
mode. In favor of this amendment the yeas were 81, the 
nays 91 — and amongst the yeas will be found the naine of 
Joseph J.'eistbk, page 221 of the journal 11. 1?. 

On the isth of January, 1817, it was moved that the com- 
pensation of members of congress should be ten dollars per 
day: in favor of the motion 5^, against it 13i — amongst 
the nays the name of Joseph Heister; page 229, jour- 
nal H. R. 

It was then moved to make the eompensatian nine dollars 
per day : the yeas were 43, the jiays 123 : amongst ihenaySf 
Joseph IIeis ter, page 230 of the IL R. 

It was next moved to make the compensation eio-ht dol- 
lars : the iieas were 76, the nays were 92 : amongst the nays, 
Joseph Heister, page2i0 of the journal H. H. 

On the 21st. January, it was moved to postpone the bill 
indefinitely, in other words to continue the 15(»0 dollar 
law: the yeas wei"e^53, nays 11 n : amongst the nays Jo- 
seph Keis iEE: pago 259, journal H. R. 

An amendment was then moved that the 1500 dollar law 
« be and the same is here!)y repealed" — Hie yeas were 85, 
the nays 81 : amongst the yeas Joseph Heister : 252, 
journal H. R. 

Itwas then moved, that the accounts of the members should 
be so settled, that no member should receive for the past 
session of 1815-lSlG, or the present session of 1816-1817, 
more than six dollars per day : the yeas were 61, the nays 
101 : amongstthe yeas Joseph Heister: page 259,jou»'-. 
nal H. R. 

It was then moved that the members should continue to 
receive for the remainder of their service the 1500 dollar 
compensation, and that it should not be at once reduced to six 
dollars : for the motion ijeas 104, nays 62 amongst the nays 
Joseph Heis er: page 2 2; journal H. K. 

On the 23d January, 1817, the ftnal question on repealing 
the 1500 dollar law, and returning to the old compensation, 
was taken and decided in the aMnaative, ?/a?5 1 2b f nays 27 -. 



6 

Snongst the yeas Joseph Heister: page 272, of journal 
H. K. 

On the Sd of March, 1817, Mr. Heister received from 
the sergeant at arms 1497 dollars, making altogetlier 3000 
dolhirs. and receiving no part Mhatever of the sum alloAved 
!)y law for mileage. lie retnrned to his home in Readings 
and after having consulted such of his constituents as he 
had the opportunity to see, on the 29//i of March, 1817, 
paid over to tise counties of Berks and Schuylkill, up- 
Avaitls of 1360 dollars, for the use of the poor of those 
counties, retaining only the compensation of six dollars per 
day. 

In order, fellow citizens, that >ve might establish these 
facts, without any reference to a correspondence with Blr. 
Eeister, we addressed letters to .John Whiteside, Esq, 
member of congress from the counties of Lancaster, tm. 
and to Dr.] ;ahn, member of congrtssfrom Montgomery coun- 
ty, who were present at the conversations, in course of which 
Mr. Heister declared his resolution not to accept for his 
own use more than six dollars per day. We have received 
from Mr. Whiteside a letter, which we subjoin, marked A, 
and hope to lay before you a letter from Dr. Halm. The 
clerk of tiie U. S. house of representatives having declar- 
ed last spring, in this city, 1. That he knew the aspersions 
against Mr. Heister to be untrue ; 2. 1 hat Mr. Heister had 
long before, in his hearing, declared be would appropriate 
his surplus pay to a charitable use; and 3. That he knew 
that several persons in Washington city wished Mr. Heister 
to devoJe it to the poor of that place — we addressed a letter 
to him ; but, Mr. Dougherty having his estate in Kentuc- 
ky, and having been there for some time past on a visit, we 
have as yet been unable to receive an answer. V« e also 
wrote to gentlemen of the highest respectability at Wash- 
ington, and have been favored with answers ; some of 
•which we subjoin, marked B. and we pledge our own re- 
putation for the truth of their contents. We also obtained 
from several gentlemen of Berks county a relation of facts, 
which we annex, marked C. 
Having thus established : — 

1. That Mr. Heister was invariably hostile to an enerease 
or change of compensation : — 

2. That when the compensation act was passed, he was 
absent with leave, on a melancholy errand : — 

3. 1 hat the act was proposed and passed within the four 
last days of the ten days alloAved to him :— 

4. That at Reading, in March .816, as soon as he heard 
of the passage of the act he condemned it, and declar- 



7 

ed he would receive for himself <m\\ six dollars \/^. 
day : — twelve months before Ms noinuiation at Car- 
lisle : — 

5. That he first drew his compensation at six dollars only : 

6. That in April, he accepted about 600 dollars surplus, 
on the representation of the sergeant at arms, and of 
some of his colleagues, he declaring to them that he 
would devote it to a charitable use : — 

7. That in May, 1S16, he told several of his constituents 
what he had done and would do : — 

Having established : — 

8. That in January 18t7. two months before his nomina" 
tion at Carlisle : Mr. Heister voted on every question 
against the 1500 dollar law : — 

9. That, he then voted, that for the past and present no 
more than six dollars per day should be allowed in the 
settlement of accounts : — 

10. That, in March 1817, when all eiforts to r(?fund the 
surplus had failed, he drew (he surplus and paid it over 
to the use of the poor : — 

Having, we say, fully eslablished all this ; listen, wr 
BESEECH YOU, FELLOW CITIZENS, to the charges invented 
and published, in an address written by Mr. Mathevv Carey, 
and signed by himself and others, partizans of Mr. William 
Fiudlay : 

" Jt was confidently asserted that Mr. Heister had not only 
" opposed the passage of the law, but had nobly and disin' 
" terestediy refused to receive any more than the usual 
" congress wages, six didlars per day. This report gained 
" him great credit and numersus friends. It was regard- 
" ed as a favorable augury of the qualities of the future 
" governor. But unfortunately for Mr. Heister, those pre- 
" tensions were canvassed — the proper records were inves= 
^' tigated — and it \vas found that these encwniiums ivere 
*« wholly destitute offoundu(io?i. Mr. Heister f//rf not vote 
*' on the passage of tlie compensation law. He was ab" 
"sent from the house. It is not for us to say whether 
'• he declined voting, /or the jmr pose of screening himself 
^^from the responsibility of sanctioning a bll which he forC' 
<' saw isfould be obnoxious — or whether his non-appearance 
*» was accidental. Suffice it to say, he was not in the house, 
*' and that all the applause bestowed un him for his strenu- 
*' ous and patriotic opposition, vanishes like the baseless 
" fabric of a vision." 

Here you behold, fellow citizens, a formal effort begun, 
not only to i-ob Mr. Heister of applause, but to load him 
with opprobrium ; and upon what is this attempt founded i — 
why, with indignation be it said, uifoa despicabk insinuations 



Tiwd mosl pitiful qnibUcs : Mi*. Carej first assumes it as a 
faot, that < he friends of Mr. Ileistcr had boasted of his hav- 
ing opposed the 1500 dollar law upon the iioor of congress ; 
and then, havin.a; himself manufactured this fact, he argues 
tiiat, as Mr. Heister was not on the floor of congress, he 
Avas not opposed to the law ! what an amiable, what a libe- 
ral, Avhat a generous antagonist is Mr. Carey ! The friends 
of Mr. Heister 7ierer did say, that he opposed the law on the 
floor orcongress, because they knew that he had gone home to 
witness, perhaps the dissolution of a member of his family, 
before the law was proposed, and did not return until after 
it passed : hut, they asserted that he had uniformly expres- 
sed his repugnance to it, in every place, and to every person, 
at which, or with whom, he spoke upon the subject, and that 
was frequently at Washington and Heading. But, even 
this contrivance, this forced conclusion, or this quibble, or by 
Avhatever name its sorry character can be defined, is liberal 
when contrasted with the insinuation slily whispered into the 
public ear, that Mr. Heister shrunk from a vote : yes, Mr. 
Carey says, he searched the records, and yet he insinuates 
that Mr. Heister went out of the house when the vote was 
taken, whereas those records told him, page 399, that ^Mr. 
Heister had obtained leave of absence before any law, or 
resolution on the subject, was brought before congress! If 
lie had searched the records, he would have ascertained the 
fact, and he mightthen have in the next place learned with- 
out much labor, that Mr. Heister had merely obeyed those 
feelings, which no brute would disregsird, or man of honor 
sport with: If he did search the records, why did lie sup- 
press the fact, page 399— and if he did not suppress thefacJ, 
why assert that the records were searched? if the records 
'.vere searched, why did Mr. Carey suppress the important 
information relative to I^Ir. Heister's votes in January, 
1817, two months before the meeting at Carlisle? and if 
Mr. Carey did not search the records, why is it stated that 
tlicv were searched? was that extracted which might serve a 
sinister end, and that suppressed which would have explain- 
ed the truth ? 

Pleased, however, Aviththe anticipation, that such insinu- 
ations would poison the public mind, the address proceeds in 
the same unworthy course, as follows : — 

« But independently of the encomiums bestowed on him for his 
imaginary opposition to the compensalion law, his friends, 
as we have stated, have been loud in liis prai«.e, for his refu- 
sal to accept more than the six dollars per day. And it 
was universally believed that he had received exactly that 
sum, aad no more, from the treasury. Here again we dis- 



9 

cover, that when « weighed in the halance, he is found 
wanting," as much as in the former instance. The protest 
which by this nohle procedure, he was said to have entered 
against th<^ seldsh conduct of his colleagues, had no exis-> 
tence but in the imaginations of his friends. The facts of 
the case are simple. We submit tnem for your considera- 
tion. 

" At the close of the session of 1815-16. Mr. Heister, in com. 
men with the other members of congress, received the full 
amount of his compensation ofgl500 per annum. He had 

[ no scruples of conscience on the subject. The money went 
to enlarge his enormous wealth. The session of ISlG-lf, 
closed in the same manner, will full payment to Mr. Heis- 

> tfr. lie had no more scruples than before. Butonthe4ili 
of March, he was unexpectedly recommended as a candi- 
date for governor at Carlisle ; and then for the first time 
did he feel any uneaviioess at partaking of the oDnoxious 
vompensation. He was probably impelled by his friends 
to perform soine popular act whereby lo ingratiate himseil 
with the public. Accordingly, he presented the surplus 
beyond six dollars per day, amounting to thirteen hundred 
and sixty four dollars, to the treasurers of the counties of 
Berks and Schuylkill. And this donation, which comes ia 
so very " questionaale a shape," was delayed until so late 
as the 29i.h of March. The time in which the measure was 
adopted, demands as much consideration as the measure it^ 
selt. 
''' It is hardly possible to hesitate what opinion to form on this 
procedure. It has a most sinister aspect. If Mr. Ileister 
believed the com|iei.sation law unjust— if he believed that 
memDiTS of congiej^s were not entitled to more than six 
dollars per day — if his disinterested spirit spurned at the 
idea of receiving the extra pay, why draw it from the trea- 
ry of the United States? Why contaminate himself with 
any part of tne 13G4 dollars ? or if he believed it to be an 
act of duty, with ti<e money of the United States to relieve 
the landholders of Beiks and Schuylkill from a portion ot 
tlie taxes, vhy not have paid .the surplus to the treasurers 
iiiimediarely ou his return home P why wait for the illumi* 
nation arising from his aomination as candidate tor the 
chair of governor .•' Had he adopted eitaer of these alter- 
natives, there might have bee- les* grounds for cens.i e." 

Surely, fellow citizens, you will admit that this caps the 
climax ! Here is a string- of asaertions and insinuations, 
such as the annals of polilieai or any other controversy^ 
however voluminous or humiliating they may have been, 
have never before recorded. I rue it is, that Mr. Heister's 
ft lends did boast of his refusal to accept more than six 
dollars per da^— and justly did they Ijoast of it ; but it is not 



10 

true that it was iitiiversLilly believed, that he received eiaetl;y 
that sum and no more, because it was boasted that he paid the 
surplus over to the poor, and how could he do that if he had 
not received it ! O, Mr. Carey, how hard it is to support 
such assertions ! How fortunate it is, that truth breaks 
forth even from the lips of those who think they are so 
snug ! How cautious should we be, when weaving the web 
of misrepresentation, to leave no loop at which detec- 
tion might enter ! No, the " noble procedure," as Mr. Ca. 
rey adujits it to be, was not the creature of the imagination, 
but the offspring of a generous spirit, which looks down with 
mingled piiy and contempt upon persons capable of com- 
liiitting such violence against the dignity of human nature ! 
True it is, that Mr. Hcistcr did receive the whole three 
thousand dollars, else how could he have given 13(5* dollars 
to the poor : but, 1. It is not true, that he had no scruples 
of conscience on the subject; 2. It is not true, that it went 
to enlarge his enormous wealth; 3. It is not true, that he 
Jirst conceived the law obnoxious, or that he resolved to ac- 
cept for himself only six dollars per day, i^'ter hisnomina- 
tion at Carlisle, on Mareh 4, 1817 ; i. It is nottruCy that 
he then first resolved to do this popular act— »1. Because^ 
in 1816, before any Carlisle convention was dreamt or 
thought of, he Jirst avowed his intentions ; 2. Because his 
avowals are established by unimpeachable testimony , 3» 
Because, to the general knowledge of most of us, tliejjosi 
conduct of Mr. Heister, in rclalioa to the 1500 dollar law, 
was stated at Carlisle, on March 4, as one of the reasons 
why IMr. ICeister ouglit to be recommended to the people 
for the station of governor; -i. Because, in January, 1817^ 
two months before his nomination at Carlisle, he voted that 
all the members of Congress should refund the surplus, and 
place themselves as if the law had never been thought of: 
5. Becanse, even if all this testimony were not in existence, 
the imputed conduct of Mr. J leister, his for the first lime 
declaring himself against that law, when he was nominat- 
ed, would irave betiayed a want of common sense, and a 
contempt for the people ; for the act would have been too 
glaring to impose upon any body, and would have met in* 
dignation instead of applause. 

Nor is the remainder of this precious specimen. of argu- 
ment, truth, and liberality, less open to explanation : why 
Mr. Heister at length consented to accept the whole sum, 
has been already shewn, and is found in tlie annexed do- 
cuments ; and ivhij he was not able to pay in Reading and 
Orwigsburg. the 1364 dollars, before his nomination at 
Carlisle on the 4th of March, 1817, is explained by this 



11 

very simj'le fact, that lie only received the money at "Wasli- 
ington city on the 3d of March, 1817 — the lamp of Alad- 
din would have been necessary to the execution of such an 
exploit : and, however strong the claim of some of his oppo- 
sers to the enviable character of conjurers, we never sup- 
posed that his country expected from Mr. Heistcr more 
than a good man and disinterested patriot could perform. 

Thus fellow citizens, we have reached the close of 

our fourth letter: we might it is true, write another co- 
lumn, and there would be ample scope, and propriety too, 
for wielding the lash of severity over the backs of persons, 
who have so little feeling for a venerable patriot, brave sol- 
dier, and uniform friend to civil and religious liberty^ but 
when we reflect, that those, who have so little feeling or 
gratitude for him, must have no great respect for them- 
selves. Me spare ourselves the pains of inflicting, and you the 
trou!)lc of witnessing, so useless a punishment: Not doubt- 
ing hut that you will find in this letter and in the annexed 
documents, cogent reasons for redoubling your efforts to 
secure the state from disgrace, by placing in its fust office, 
a fellow citizen Avho has always served his country faithful- 
ly, and who has never taken from its coffers a cent forth^ 
support of his fantily. 

JOHN r.oonvfAN, 

.tOsKPH liEFD. 
J W tHoVil'SON, 
1S\AC T.OYRR, 
W. J. DUANE. 

Philadelphia, August 1817. 

A- 

Extract of a letter, from John Whiteside, esf;. member of the 14th congress, to 
a member ol'__the coiainiliee of coirfcspouJcnci , appo.nitd it La.liale :]uated : 

" Lancaster, July, 18lh 1817. 

"With regard, to yonr request, respecting the 1500 dol- 
lar law ; I hope that I may not be considered as taking any 
part in the present electioneering contest, by merely stating 
the little that I know upon the subject. 

Gen. Heister and I lodged together in the same house in 
"Washington city; and I had an opportunity of knowing his 
sentiments. He Avasnot present, when the 1500 dollar law 
was passed: on account of sickness in his family, he obtain- 
ed leave of absence from the house, as may he seen on the 
journal of the II. of R. first session of the 1 ith congress, 
page 399, 1815-1816. Immediately after his return to 
Washington, he expressed his entire disapprohation of the 
laWf and likewise his determination not to receive the extj-.i 
compensation allowed by that law. In conversation witu 
gen. Heister respecting his not receiving the extra compe^- 



12 

sation, it was mentioned to him, that the money allowed to 
him by the laAv was placed to his credit, and vvouhl remain 
unappropriated to any other purpose, and that he might as 
well receive it as not : lie in reply said, that he would lift 
the money, and would place the surplus, over his pay at six 
dollars per day in the treasuries of the counties lie repre- 
sented, for the use of his constituents. This is the princi- 
pal part of what I recollect on tliis subject. There were 
others who heard the general's sentiments as well as my- 
self: Dr. Hahn, the representative from Montgomery coun- 
ty, was frequently present when this subject was spoken of; 
and I have no doubt, but that he will confirm what I have 
stated. The Dr. was also absent when the 1 500 dollar law 
was passed, but on his return he as well as gen. Heister did 
uniformly disapprove of it. 

Very respectlully, yours, he. 

J WHITESIDE 

B. 

Extract of a letter from a gentletnan of Wa»hinp;tnn eity, to a member of the 
Comtui.tee of Correspondence, apijoime- 1 at Carlisle, tinted — 

" WashingteUf July 17, 1817, 

" Mr. Dougherty is absent in Kentucky. I can, liowoer, 
give you some correct information upon the subject myself, 
principally within my personal knowlege. 1 understood 
from general Heister himself, as well as from several other 
gentlemen who heard him converse upon the suliject of the 
§1500 law, that he did not intend to receive more than six 
dollars per day for his own private benefit ; that, if he took the 
surplus, he would appropriate it to some charitable purpose. 
Some of our citizens applied to him to make the donation of 
it to the poor of this city, but on reflection he eoueluded to 
make a donation of it, to the poor of Ids own district, which 
I think was just. 

" In regard to the pay, it is in my power to give you the 
most correct information. The sums paid to Mr. Ileister 
"were :— 

<- February 24, 1816, 

*' April 27", 1816, 

''March 3, 1817, 

3000 
** You will perceive, that he drew 543 dollars on 24th 
February, 1816, and did not accept the balance of the first 
years compensation, until congress were about to adjourn at 
the end of April ; that he did not draw a cent of the last 
year's compensation until the last day of the session; and that 
lie took no mileage for either session. 




^^ After the famous 1500 dollar law was passed, the con- 
gress did not know the exact meaning of it, and accordingly 
applied to Mr. Rush, attorney general, to interpret it : the 
cause of the application was this ; some members were about 
to resign, having got better business, and as congress sat 
after the 3d of March, they wanted to touch the second 
year's salary ; and indeed almost all of the members wanted 
a part of it. Mr. Rush gave an opinion that, as the law 
made it a salary office, they could not draw any of the se- 
cond year's salary unless they remained three months, when 
they could receive one quarter's salary. They were not satis- 
fied with this, hut determined to pay themselves seven dol- 
lars and fifty cents per day so long as they remained after 
the Sd of Alareh : and with the exception of general Heis- 
ter^ Joseph Hopkinson, and John Sergeant, I believe every 
other man of the Pennsylvania delegation took the whole 
amount, which was from 2000 to 2300 dollars within the 
Jirst tjear ! for instance : 

Mr. Abner Lacock, Senator, of Beaver Co. §2104 — 10 

Mr. Jonathan Roberts, do. Montj^nmery 1990—60 

Dr. Hdhn, member for do. 1910—10 

Mr. Darlington, (of Chester) - - 2031—00 

Mr. Griffin, of Fayette, &c. - - - 2079 

Mr. Ingliani, of Bucks, &,c. - - 2011—70 

Mr. Lyle, of Washington co. - - £102-20 

Mr. Piper, of Bedford, . - - . 1956— SO 

Mr. Wallace, ... . . 1963— &c. 

Ex(r3Ct of another letter, dated : 

IFa&kinpQn, Ju'y 29, 1817. 

•' In answer to your queries : — 

1st. I did understand, in the course of the session of 
1815-1816, when the ISOOdollar compensation law was 
passed, that gen. Heister did not intend to take more 
than six dollars per day for his own private use 

2d. I cannot ascertain any thing certain respecting our 
citizens applying for the surplus, but at that time we 
had such a report. 

3d. On the 3d of March, 1S16, Mr. Heister drew his pay 
at six dollars per day from December to that day, 
which amounted to 5*3 dollars. 

ith. On the 27th of April, 1816, Mr. Heister consented 
to accept 960 dollars, a part of that sum was for hi& pay 
fiom March 8, to April 27, the residue of the extra 
sum according to the new law. The sergeant at arms 
(who pays the members and keeps their accounts) tells 
me, that on this last occasion a conversation took place 



14 

between gen. Heistcr and several of the mcinLers re. 
lative to the surplus ; when gen. Heister stated, that he 
wouhl give it to some cliaritable institution ; some 
member then observed to liini, as he received the money 
in Washington he might as well present it to the poor of 
that place; but, on reileeting a little, he replied that 
he would appropriate it to the use of his own district 
or in anyotherway most agreeable to his constituents." 

C. 

We, the subscribers, do hereby certify, that,in the month 
of March 1816, gen. Joseph Heister came from the city 
of Washington to Reading, on account of the dangerous 
illness of a member of his family: whilst he remained at 
Heading, we had frequent opportunities of conversing with 
him on our public uifairs ; and the subject of the compen- 
sation of members of congress was amongst otlier matters 
spoken of — G n. Heister said explicitly that he would not 
vote for any additional compensation, and that if the act 
ynder consideration should become a law, he would not 
accept as his own compensation more than the sum then al- 
lowed bylaw, namely, six dollars per day — At liis return 
after the close of the session in Apvil or May 1810, the 
subject of the compensation act was again spoken of, and 
we understood IVonjgen. Heistcr, that he had not drawn for 
his own use more than he would have been entitled to, if 
the compensation had not been increased. He was asked 
what he intended to do with the residue of the sum to which 
the new law entitled him ; he replied that he did not 
know exactly how he would dispose of it, but he would 
make it known after the 4<th day of March next, to wit — 
in 1817. At this as well as on other occasions, when the 
subject was spoken of he declared that he would not re- 
ceive the new compensation for his benefit; but would be 
satisfied with the old rate of six dollars per diem compensa- 
tion. We further certify that we heard him declare (his 
repeatedly before we had heard any thing of the conven- 
tion at Carlisle. 

Witness our hands, Reading, July 29th, 1817. 

JN. BOYER, 
JJANIEL. iiOSE, 
PETER N VGLE, 
MICHL. \tAt)EIRA, 
GEO. BOYBii, 
JOHN BIRKINBINE. 



CIRCULAB. LETTER 

No. V. 



TO THE REPUBLICAJ^r COMMITTEES OF 
C ORRESP 0,XI)EJ\TE. 

Feilow citizens — In the letters which we have already ad- 
dressed to you, we have answered all the objections made 
to Mr. Heister and his friends, excepting the three, which 
we now proceed to notice ; the present letter, therelbre, 
will close our defence. 

It is asserted, in the address written by Mr. Mathew 
Carey, and signed by himself and other members of the com- 
mittee appointed by the Harrisburgh caucus : — 

1. That the friends of Mr. Heister formed an electoral 
ticket, intending to prevent the election of Mr, Moni'oe : 

2. That Mr. Heister is too old to execute the duties of 
governor : 

3. That Mr. Heister in 1805, accused the whole demo- 
cratic party of being ripe for a division of property. 

1. It was obviously the purpose of those, who accuse u^; 
of having intended to oppose Mr. Monroe, to persuade our 
fellow citizens that any such Ov position involved a derelic- 
tion of principle : in any other light the accusation would 
have been utterly destitute of object : If, then, opposition to 
a person, deemed the republican candidate, implies aposJacy, 
what right had Mr. Carey and nearly all the advocates of 
Ml'. Findlay in this district to make the charge ? — they, 
who but a few years ago not only opposed the republican 
candidate Mr. Snyder, but by their votes actually secured the 
election of his opponent. If they had aright to oppose Mr. 
Snyder, and were not corrupt in doing so, why had not we a 
right, why was it corrupt in us, to opj)ose Mr. Monroe ? We 
do not say that Mr. Carey and his friends, who now pretend 
to be the only immaculate republicans, were apostates wiien 
they opposed Mr. Snyder ; but undoubtedly if what they 
say of us is true, they do not merit our charity. 

But waiving all argument of that kind, let us come to 
the true question, whether what Mr. Carey's address as- 



yUJ.- 



serts is true ? We at once answer that it is not : Indeed that 
imagination must have been most extravagant, which could 
suppose, that at a moment wlien no opposition to Mr. Monroe 
was contemplated in any part of the union, a few delegates 
at Carlisle, should intend to make opposition two months 
before the election I such a project would have been not only 
useless, but grossly ridiculous. No, those, v/ho recom- 
mended a second electoral ticket, had not the least intention 
or inclination to oppose Mr. Monroe ; they avowed their 
real intentions as publicly as possible in their addresses ; 
they simply resolved to commence an opposition to all cau- 
cus nominations whatever, with those hopes of future advan- 
tage, which are already, we believe, about to be realized. 
Far from entertaining hostility to Mr. Monroe, they deemed 
that moment, when there was not another candidate, as 
propitious to their real object: if any of them had preferred 
some other person to Mr. Monroe, they would have 
had an undoubted right to the exercise of their judgment; 
but no contrast or opposition, was thought of: And now the 
friends of reform in Pennsylvania more sincerely respect Mr. 
Monroe, than those who profess such an exclusive zeal in his 
favor : for he has lately avowed exactly such sentiments as 
they cherish ; he has advised his countrymen to bury in ob- 
livion all party animosities ; he has urged them to unite in 
supporting our admirable form of government ; and he has 
declared that such a union would not involve any compro- 
mise of principle. His opinions, therefore, are in exact 
accordance with those of Mr. Heister's advocates : Let the 
friends of Mr. Findlay reconcile them, if tbey can, with their 
efforts to perpetuate party contentions, and with their indis- 
criminate proscription of every one, who will not submit to 
their insolent dictation. 

2. It is objected to Mr. Heister that he has passed tlie 
meredian of life ! the first time, we think, that age and 
consequent experience, were ever urged as ai'guments 
against any candidate in Pennsylvania, orperliaps anywhere 
else As usual, in all that has come from the caucus com- 
mittee, the bow of exaggeration is bent with great freedom, 
in <his instance : Those, however, who know Mr. Heister 
well, those who have for many years served wi(h him in 
congress, declare that he is in the full vigor of mind and 
body : he is younger tilian the late governor M<Kean was, 
when Mr. Carey himself, and many of his associates, voted 
for him in preference to IVJr. Snyder ; and he is not so old 
in years or constitution, as many of the patriots who have ho- 
norably served their country in the cabinet and field. If 
such an objection as iliis had any force, our history would 



liot record the long services of a Franldin, a Jefferson, an 
Adams, a Clinton, a Gerry, a M'Kean, a Stark, a Shelby, 
a Pinkney, a Livingston, a Langdon, and of many other 
sages, who have been an ornament and honor to their coun- 
try in old age, and in whom age had not been considered, or 
found, a disqualification for duties of the utmost delicacy 
and importance. Indeed, if we were to determine upon po- 
litical fitness, by the age, and not by the services, mind and 
constitution, the present president of the United States ought 
to have been excluded, because he will be as old as Mr. 
Heister is at present, ere he will have closed the present 
term of his service. Public opinion, however, does not 
sanction the proscribing doctrine, which would deprive of 
honor and reward, all those who assisted to establish Ame- 
rican independence : on the conti-ary, so long as there is 
one of those, who were virtuous in »< the times that tried 
mens' souls," he can have very little regard for civil liberty 
who will oppose him with the weapons of misrepresentation 
and calumny. 

3. It is said, that, in 1805, Mr, Heister accused the whole 
democratic party, of being ripe for a division of property ; 
and Mr. Carey adds, that tliis accusation was amongst the 
causes of the defeat of the democratic candidate at that pe- 
riod. One would conclude from this, that Mr. Carey had 
not opposed the democratic candidate at that time, and es- 
pecially that he had not in the least contributed to swell the 
stream of reproach, which he says overwhelmed the demo- 
cratic party : yet it is notorious, that, if Mr. Carey did not 
employ his pen on that occasion, his purse assisted those who 
employed theirs, to give currency to whatever was then pub- 
lished. 

Is it, however, true, that Mr. Heister made such a sweep- 
ing accusation ? We answer, that it is not. Thecircum* 
stances, we believe, were these : 

On the 4th of July, 1805, at the house of James Lowry, 
near Meadville, Crawford county, certain toasts w ere drank 
by a company of persons celebrating the anniversary of 
American independence. A few days afterwards, the toasts 
drank on the occasion were published in a newspaper, and 
one of those toasts was stated to have been — " An equal dis- 
tribution of property.^*. The circumstance of such a toast, 
having been published, was seized with avidity by those who 
at that time co-operated with Mr. Carey ; and, as is too 
much the case at all elections, this matter, which might 
have been, and soon after was, easily explained, was magni- 
fied and embellished to suit party purposes. Mr. IMarma- 
duke Curtis, who had drank a toast — '<aa equal distributiou 



of jHStice," caUed upoii the printer, and prevailed upon hi ni 
to coireet the mistake : tlie mistake was corrected in the 
original medium of error, but, as it is the improper practice, 
the correction was exchuled from those newspapers, which 
found it convenient to disseminate the story. Confiding, 
therefore, in the truth of what was published as a fact; be- 
lieving it true, that such a toast had been drank in a large 
company, and published at their desire ; never having seen or 
heard of the correction ; the late gen. Muhlenberg, in 
August 1805, wrote a letter to gen. Heister, urging him to 
support the election of Mr. M'Kean, and amongst other in- 
ducements, mentioned the toast which was published. No 
one can condemn either Mr. Muhlenberg, or Mr. Heister, 
for disapproving of such a toast : no one can be surprised 
that (hey both felt disgust at the utterance of such a doc- 
trine : but no one can surely suppose that either of them ever 
imagined that such a project was contemplated by a whole 
party. ndoubtedly the letter of Mr. Muhlenberg was. pub- 
lished, and it may be that its language was abused for a par- 
ty purpose ; but that Mr. eister ever pronounced '* the 
w bole desMOcratic party ripe for and determined on a divi- 
sion of property — an agrarian law," as Mr. Carey's address 
asserts, is as much at variance with fact, as it would have 
been absurd if said or suspected by any one. Such, then, is 
a sisiiplc explanation of an affair, which has on many occasioiis, 
been made the subject of crimination, without any intended 
injproprietyin those implicated. 

But, fellow citizens, now that we are discussing a ques- 
tion, in which an Agrakian law is incidentally mention- 
*id, it may be well to enquire — whether, although no such 
toast as that above mentioned was drank, and although no 
such accusation as th^t imputed to Mr. Heister was made by 
Jiim, ive hiwe not great cause to he alarmed at measures ad - 
tocnted by the warm partix,ans of Mr. Findlay involving 
consequences equally perriicious ivith those of an equal'distri- 
l}uliou of property '} 

Jf we shall shexv you, fellow citizens, not from a pretend- 
ed toast of an individual at a festival, but from the records 
of the legislature, that the active partizans of Mr. Findlay, 
have already attempted to pollute the sanctuary of private 
rights, will not the exposition have the most serious influ- 
ence upon your judgments ? If we shall shew you, that at- 
tempts have been made to take private property from soii^e 
of our citizens, and to transfer it to some others y contraiy 
to the will of the owner, and without any equivalent from 
those coming into possession — will not this fact alarm you 
for your own safety ? Jfwc shall shew j/ow, that an attempt 



has been made to declare it an offence, for a judge to inter- 
fere to prevent the plunder of some of our citizetis by others 
— will not this unexampled act convince you that the pre- 
sent is no common election ? 

In making this appeal to you, we do not implicate any 
considerable portion of our fellow citizens; we do not be- 
lieve that in Pennsylvania, the number is great of those 
who would wish to take propei'ty that does not belong to 
them, and who instead of i)aying for it, would turn a judge 
out of court who should award restitution : no, to such an 
extent of dishonesty and shame, the people of Pennsylvania 
will never go. But, we assert, that many of the active 
partizans of Mr. Findlay, have already tarnished, as much 
as they could, the reputation of the state, by introducing 
into the hall of the legislature, a project not less unsound 

AND pernicious THAN AN AGRARIAN lAW 1 1 SELF. 

Not content with exerting themselves, to keep in full vigop 
the flame of party animosity, the advocates of Mr. Findlay 
have appealed to the passions of persons, long engaged, to 
the injury of all parties, and to the disgrace of the state, in 
disputes about land titles. Indeed the partizans of Mr. 
Findlay seem to have considered themselves at liberty, to 
hohl out hopes in the most desperate cases, with the expec- 
tation of securing votes for their candidate. Hence it is, 
that in those parts of the commonwealth, where there had. 
been disputes between settlers and warrant-holders, and in 
which mutual concessions had nearly quieted contentions, 
THE TORCH OF DISCORD IS Xgain LIGHTED, and Mr. Find- 
lay is proclaimed the man, who will throw all his influence 
if elected into the scale of the settlers. Thus the axe is 
to be at once laid at the root of justice, and the ties of con- 
ciliation, for many years forming to the advantage of all 
ooncerned, and to the honor of the state, are to be rudely 
torn asunder. 

Amongst the most active partisans of Mr. Findlay, are 
persons who had entered into agreements with settlers to 
keep them in possession, no matter what the courts of law 
should decide, on condition of receiving pai*cels of the land : 
itiose speculators, in t)rder to compel the real owners of the 
land to compromise,, year after year brought bills before 
the legislature, fi-auglit with the most pernicious princi~ 
pies. Nevertheless. the courts of law proceeded steadily in 
theii* equitable course, and the settlers, seeing . themselves 
duped, in numerous instances abandoned the speculators, 
and made eompromises with the real owners, or else left the 
state at once. It is to" the remnant of those unforti^nate 
persons, that the partizans of Mr. Findlay now apply for 



help; it is to the very persons whom they have aided to 
ruin, that the speculators address themselves, although 
they kuow perfectly well that the people of Pennsylvania 
would spurn any governor, who should dare to trample 
upon the fundamental principles of society. 

iVIiat^ however, would fee the resuli., should such means 
accomplish the elevation of Mr. Findlay, is, after all, a con- 
sideration pregnant with the most awful forebodings : No 
doubt, the people of this virtuous state would sustain, or at 
least retrieve, their character : No doubt the hall of justice, 
if shut up for a moment, would soon be opened : But what 
mind can dwell upon such a cessation of government itself, 
without the utmost anxiety and apprehension ? 

Do not imagine, fellow citizens, that what we thus say to 
you, is for the mere purpose of obtaining your suffrages for 
one man in preference to another ; no, we have ample cause 
for our fears, and we think that you will concur v.ith us in 
our anxiety, when we lay before you, not the toast, the ar- 
gument, or the proposition of an individual, but a bill, deli- 
berately passed by a majority of the representatives of the 
people of Pennsylvania, at the last session of the legislature. 

This law was introduced by Mr. Rees Hill, the 
speaker of the house of representatives, on the 6th of 
February last, and was passed by a majority, on the 2Sth 
of the same moiiih • it was introduced by that gentleman, 
who, it is believed, is personally interested in the issue, as 
he holds or lives upon land which another person bought 
from the state and paid for ; and it was supported, we be- 
lieve, by most of those members who voted in the caucus on 
the 4th of March to nominate Mr. Findlay : In order that 
no doubt may exist, we lay before you the bill itself, as it 
was adopted in the house of representatives — as follows : — 

Sect. 1. Be it enacted, ijfc. That in all actions of ejectment, if it shall 
appear upon a trial thatthe plaintiff or plaintiffs, or any person or persons, 
under whom he, she or they shall claim, shall have made use of any fic- 
tion, deception, fraud, or forg^a-y, by which means he, she or they 
became the original purchaser or purchasers of more than 400 acres 
of land within the boundaries described by the second section of the act 
of the 1st of April 1784, e ititled '* An set for opening the land office fop 
granting and disposing of the unappropriated lands within this state,' the 
court before which any such action of ejectment shall be brought for trial, 
shall immedititely dismiss the suit at the cost of the plaintifi or plaintiffs, 
and every judge who shall refuse his assent to th« dismisson of any suph 
action of ejectment, sliali be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office 

Sect. 2. Be it further enacted, i^c- That in all actions of ejectment 
where the title by which the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall claim, originated 
Si years before the suing out of the writ of ejectment (except the plaintiff 
or the plaintiffs, or those under whom he, she or they shail claim, have 
been in the quiet and peaceable possession of said px'emises by an actual 
personal i-esident settlement within seven years next before the suing out 
of such writ of ejectment) the court before which any such action of eject. 



ment shall be brought fur trial, shall Immediately dismiss the suit at the 
cost of the plaintiff or plaintifi's ; and every judge who shall refuse his as 
sent to the dismission of any such action of ejectment, shall be deemed 
guilty of a misdemeanor in office. 

P.ovided That the provisions of this act shall not affect In any manner 
the proceedings of the courts in any case relating to lands which have 
been granted to any officer or soldier for his military services, nor in anj' 
trial where the title is of the description mentioned In the fifth section of 
the act to which this is a supplement. Ana provided alto. That the per- 
sons who have been incapable of possessing or suing agreeablj- to the pro- 
visions of the fourth section of the act to which this is a supplement, shalf 
not be affected in anyway by this act. 

This bill, fellow citizens, is unforliinately couched in such 
languajije as will not be easily understooil ; but, to use the 
words of a memorial signed by ^Ir. Thomas liEiPKii, and 
presented to the legislature in March last, against the pas- 
sage of this law, *' it IS THE MOST DIRECT IWASIOX OF 
*< PROPERTY THAT THE PAGES OF I-EGlSLATIOlf EVER 

« PRESENTED TO THE woRLi»." It may be imagined by 
most of our citizens, that it strikes at the estate of one por- 
tion of the community only, but even if that were the ease, 
what security have those who are spared to-day, that they 
will not be made (he victims of rapacity on the next ? 

The bill, however, directs an absolute violation of the 
constitution, and therefore it is an attack upon us all. It 
declares, in effect, that no person, who shall have bought 
more than 400 acres of land, shall have a x'ight to recover 
such part of it over that quantity, as has been taken pos- 
session of by another person : it declares that, if the f;i- 
ther of a family, bought from the state 400O acres of laud 
and paid for it, his children ^hall not be able to go into 
court, and recover 3600 acres, of which, without pcrniissiou 
or payment, strangers may have taken possession ! It de- 
clares that no person, who has more than *00 acres, shall 
have a right to try his title before a jury, but that thejudges 
shall at once refuse the owner of tlie land a hearing! It is 
of no consequence that the" state sold and received payment 
from an individual for more than 400 acres ; this bill de- 
clares, that the state, after selling and receiving payment, 
shall take back the land from the purchasers — for what 
purpose, do you suppose, fellow citizens ? Not to keep it 
for the state at large, but to give it to persons who had ille- 
gally got into possession — Mr. Hill for instance ! 

But this description only includes the first section of the 
bill.,' the second section piodaims principles, if possible, 
more subversive of the inviolable rights of individuals than 
the first: the /fret section embraces only a particular part 
of the state, hut there is not a cuixen hi the commoiavealtli* 
whose rights muy not he jint injeopardij hj the second.' To 



use the languaj^e of (he memorial above alluded to ; *' 
** ijumediate eliect of the second section, is to deprive of 



the 
depriT'^e of his 

*< jivopertij and estate^ every owker of a farm, on >vhich 
*< he has not, within seven years, been an actual resident: 

" EVERY OWNER OF A HOUSE OU LO OF GROUND, in any 

«* of our towns and villages, which he has let to tenants, un- 
*' less within the same space of time he has personally in- 
♦' habited or occupied them ! If it should pass into a law, 
*' without alteration, and judges (notwithstanding their 
" oaths to administer justice) should be fouml willing to 
** execute it, its immediate effect will be, a totax trans- 

*' MVTATION OF TROPERTY TIIROUGUOUI THE 9T vTE, the 

" tenant ivill directly hecome the otvnerrwithoiit having jmid 
*'■ a cent for the farm, the house, or the lot which he has 
" rented, unless the landlord happens to have dwelt on or 
*' occupied the spot, and thus, by a sudden kevolutiov, 
*< the owner may he instantaneautily reduced to poverty. It 
" is true, indeed, that if he happens to reside on the farm, 
*' or live in the house of another, he may, by an act of si- 
*• milar dishonesty^ compensate himself for his own loss, 
*' by defending (he possession against his own lantUord ; but 
*' (he widow and (he orphan, who would not, in general, 
** have the same means of redress, must sink in the storm 
*' without even a chance of succour from retributive ini- 
*' quity. 

" It may, however, appear hereafter, that an injury so ex- 
*' tensive is not proposed — that the operationof the law is 
** to" be confined to (he proprietors of lai'ge bodies of land 
*' hitherto uncultivated, or cuhivated only by agents or te- 
*' uants. If this shall be avowed, i( will be only (o cluuige the 
*' locality of the injustice it will be only to suspend the com- 
** plaints ofthe wliole by inflicting the evil on a part of 
«' the community — but it will be to enforce a principle, 
" which though applied only to a few or a single individual, 
*« is equally adhorrent to natural and chartered rights, audit 
" will be to establish a precedenf, vhichif once assented to, 
*' will terminate in tarnishing the chai acter, J'educing the 
*' population, and destroying the piosperity of Pennsylvania. 

\* The rights which are successluiiy violated under one 
*' pretence to day, may, with equal success, be violated 
*' under another pretence to-morrow— and the imaginary ti- 
*< tie which this law may give, will, with equal facility, be 
*' destroyed by the next — Foice mus( then be substituted 
** for law — iumed associations vill (ake place of judicial 
" power, and the interior of our country will gradually be- 
*' come a thi atrc of violence and oritrage. These conside- 
« riitians need not be puisued — no feeling and no virtuous 
♦' mind can reflect on them without horror." 



Sucti, fellow citizens, is the motive, and such is the 
TENDENCY of a mcasui'e ardently supported by the pavti- 
zansof Mr. Findlay^iii the legislature last winter/: such is 
tiic ACT, which was adopted by a majority of (hose members, 
who voted in caucus for the state treasurer : such are the 
PRINCIPLES and the objects of those persons, to whom an 
appeal is made, in order to secure their votes. This is no 
illusion, uo toast, no navspaper alarm: it is a solemn act 
proposed and adopted in one of tliehranclies of the legisla- 
ture, hij persons, who no7v claim the conjidence of Penn- 
vania. 

If THIS is not AN AGRAKiAN LAW, wc do uot know wliat 
such a law is: if this act does not contemplate more than 
an equal distribution of property, its meaning is altogether 
unknown to us : but, we believe that no one will hesitate to 
give it that character : hecaw^e, i. it declares, in effect, that 
no man shall hold more than 400 acres of land : 2. it de- 
clares, that the owner of that quantity must reside on it, or 
any other person may take possession : 3. it declares, that 
if an owner shall not reside on his property, and another per. 
son shall take possession, the owner shall have no redress : 
4. it declares, that if any judge shall hear the complaint of 
an owner against a trespassing occupant, such judge shall 
be dismissed from office. 

In 1S05, when it was rumored that a toast was drank, 
reeomsnending an equal distribution of properly^ the senti- 
ment was ridiculed by many worthy men, because it was not 
supposed that any measure so pernicious could be for a nio- 
mcnt entertained-, except in the head of a maniac : But, here 
■vveiindas pernicious a measure proposed and adopted in one 
ofthe brauches of the assembly of Pennsylvania! and we 
ilnd an appeal made to the occupants of other people's lands, 
in favor of Mr. Wni. Findlay, as the champion, who would 
reduce every man's estate to iOO acres, and secure the sur- 
plus to all that should occupy it ! 

When, fellow citizens, we reflect upon these circumstan- 
ces, and bear in mind tlie project, which Mr. Findlay is 
said to have avowed^ that the judiciary ought to have a 
droug political cast : When we reflect that Mr. Findlay 
has, without denial, been accused of having avowed to the 
late judge Yates at Pittsburgh, tliut any judge should be 
impeaciied, who would not execute an unconstitutional law, 
or in other words who should dare to question the constituti- 
onality of any act of assembly : W hen, we reflect, that the 
authors of all those pernicious bills, introduced into the 
legislature, under the specious pretext of assisting settlersj 
but really to enable speculators to impose upoa the lioiieSt 



10 

teidcr and tue vvarrant-liolder too ; wlien wc say, sucli- per^ 
sons are amongst the most ardent supporters of Mr. Fiudlay ; 
we conicss that we entertain fears of an administration^ 
whieli wouhl owe much of its force to the influence of such 
persons, and which, would seem to he pledged to remove 
that strong" harrier^ between the people and oppression, an 
enlij^htened judiciary, independent of faction? uninfluenced 
hy political passions, and only restricted by constitutional 
limits. 

If no other considerations than these existed, they would 
be sufficient fo prompt us to appeal to your patriotism and 
i^ood sense : but when, besides encroachments upon your 
property — your rights and liberties are infringed, by legis- 
lative usurpation, and you are proscribed if you oppose the 
«!ecision of a conclave, your honor and your spirit as well as 
your dearest interests, demand the earnest exercise of all 
your powers, to prostrate those schemes, with which Mr. 
Findlay and his partizans are ''literally running over." 

JOHN GOODMAN, 
JOSEPH REED, 
J. W. THOMPSON 
ISAAC BOYER, 
. W, J. DUANE, 

k^hiiadelphia;, August, 1817- 



IBS '20 



